Romans 13 and Revelation 13

[JohnHurt]

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

[Soloist]

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

Wife: parts of Romans 13 are echoed in other sections of the New Testament, such as when Jesus talks about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars, or in first Peter 2. First Timothy also talks about praying for those in authority.

My personal thought is that it’s the same as the authority given to the husband or the parents. It doesn’t mean that all husbands or all parents are good, or that you should sin because they tell you to. I feel like first Peter does a pretty good job of showing both the authority structures and the suffering for righteousness sake.

[Wesleyb]

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.

And yet your ancestors or their descendants eventually decided that area needed a government and it has one today.

[JohnH]

What is wrong with Romans 13

You won't find agreement with the idea there's anything "wrong" with Romans 13, outside of the ultra-liberal wings of "Christianity" which have abandoned belief in the authority of scripture.

[Bootstrap]

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."

To me, the Bible speaks authoritatively, so I assume that Romans 13 is right.

But I don't read it the way you do, either. It does not say everything the ruler does is good, it says that we should do good, we should not do what is wrong, as a matter of conscience. It is clearly warning us against lawlessness.

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.

Obviously, we cannot do what is wrong "as a matter of conscience". But sometimes even the church needs the government to keep us honest, we have seen that in many scandals involving fraud, sexual abuse, etc.

[ohio jones]

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.

[Bootstrap]

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

[barnhart]

One way to defuse the friction Mr. Hurt sees around Romans 13 is to understand Romans 13 as descriptive of government not prescriptive of how it should be. This is particularly a problem in America where culture, tradition and theology have been forged around an idea that the US is the main character of history. This is whose struggle to understand how government can be both authorized by God and bad at the same time. We expect America to be the hinge point of history, not just another nation God will judge in his time.

[JohnH]

Even under a very corrupt government where you can find precious little to positive to say about it, it usually enforces things like petty thievery or not tolerating rampant wife-beating. And so we can be grateful for that, and it is also a question that if our own conduct is so bad that the government enforces (just) laws against us, then it means we have fallen very short of the glory of God.

[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"