Romans 13 and Revelation 13

[JohnHurt]

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?

You can say that God does "create evil" (Isaiah 45:7) and lets evil government exist, but that is not the same as saying that all government ministers are doing this:

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

or this:

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

You need to define "good" and "evil" in Romans 13 and make it fit Pol Pot. I think that is impossible.

[JohnHurt]

A church as a whole can speak out against elected officials all it wants; it just can't engage in a political campaign. And individuals in the church can also campaign for or against any candidate for office.

The superior dictates to the inferior.

[JohnHurt]

What would happen in practice is that a taxpayer undergoing an IRS audit might have their contributions examined if they itemized deductions. The names of the organizations they contributed to would be fed into the exempt organization database. If there's a church that's not in the database, the IRS could then ask if it's a legitimate church in order to allow or disallow the deduction. The depth of that research would probably depend on the amount of the deduction. I would expect a $500 contribution to Generic Mennonite Church to be handled much differently than a $500,000 contribution to Generic Prosperity Ministries. And in neither case would I expect the investigation to look at political speech unless there's an obvious blatant disregard for the boundaries.

A better solution would be to donate your time or goods directly to the poor, in secret, and not report anything. Matt 6:2-4

Taking the tax deduction is an error just like taking the 501(c)3 status.

Christ said "freely you have received, freely give." Matt 10:8

Peter said we should teach without payment. 1 Peter 5:2

If Caesar's image is on the gold, it belongs to Caesar, not God.

That is another thread.

[JohnH]

The superior dictates to the inferior.

What on earth are you talking about? It's illegal for a church to campaign for a someone running for office. I don't see where the Bible commands us to do that, either.

A better solution would be to donate your time or goods directly to the poor, in secret, and not report anything. Matt 6:2-4

I prefer to donate to my church, who then in turn donates to those who are in need and I don't even know the details, so my left hand truly doesn't know what my right hand is doing.

Taking the tax deduction is an error just like taking the 501(c)3 status.

I haven't itemised deductions in years. I think I did 25 years ago, but it's been so long that I can't remember.

In any case, there is nothing wrong or immoral about deducting a donation.

There is no such thing as "taking 501(c)3 status". It is impossible to have a church in America that doesn't have 501(c)3 status, as it is automatic. I suppose you could start a business and call it a church, or start a political action committee and call it a church. I don't think most people would think a political campaign should call itself a church though.

Peter said we should teach without payment. 1 Peter 5:2

Generally speaking in our Anabaptist circles we don't pay our teaching ministers. The money donated to church is either given away, or else is used for shared expenses like paving the parking lot at church.

If Caesar's image is on the gold, it belongs to Caesar, not God.

That doesn't make sense, either. God gives us resources, and God also institutes governments, that actually can be a blessing. I don't think living in a state of anarchy is somehow something "better". Many governments wisely steward the money supply so that our money can actually be worth something, we can save it, and we can spend it.

But if you don't want to use money at all you are free to barter and find other ways to get by. I have found that many people talk a big talk about avoiding cash and money, but when I propose exchanging goods and services with them, it turns out they actually still prefer money.

[JohnHurt]

It is impossible to have a church in America that doesn't have 501(c)3 status, as it is automatic.

Yes, there is a corporate church with a building, a leader, and a hierarchy of men. This is what is taxed and what everyone can "see" as a church.

So yes, you are right, the corporate church is automatically given a 501(c)3 status as the corporate church is inferior to the government of men, and always has been since Constantine established it.

But there is another church that does not have any status from the government of men, nor can it be labeled as 501(c)3.

It looks like this:

The 1st century church met in their houses (Romans 16:5, Acts 8:3, Acts 12:12, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Philemon 1:2),
Christ forbade the hierarchy of men. Luke 22:24-26
And He forbade the use of church titles. Matt 23:7-11
Or the collection of payments for a clergy. Matt 10:8, 1 Peter 5:2
The members all function as priests and clergy now, with Christ as our High Priest. Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10, 1 Peter 2:5, Heb 3:1

I did a prison ministry for many years but never went to church.
I would meet with my friends at the park to pray on the Sabbath, like the example in Acts 16:13.
And we met in our houses.
Once we rented a building, and we borrowed a building, but we never owned a building, as the ownership of a building creates a power struggle.
And we gave directly to the poor, not usually money but food and sometimes a place to stay.
And we never paid taxes, filed paperwork or reported any activity to anyone.

This type of association can never be taxed as it has no assets.
And if your activities do not use money, then they cannot be taxed.

Church is the "ecclesia" or the "called out." Not everyone that sits in a pew at your church is called out, but some are.
The ecclesia or called out is a lot bigger than a single denomination.

And this ecclesia cannot be 501(c)3. It is superior to the governments of men.
Some of the ecclesia may be sitting in your church building. And they may donate to the corporate church which would pay taxes, but is exempt from taxes if it abides by the rules of the government.
It is the corporate church that must conform to the rules to avoid the taxes, not the members of the ecclesia.

As a 501(c)3, the "clergy" gets to write off their home mortgage as a tax free "parsonage." No wonder they don't oppose 501(c)3.

The Indianapolis Baptist Temple learned about 501(c)3 when they did not pay the taxes for their employees. They lost their building to the IRS, and then started again in another location, this time without the 501(c)3.

People in the ecclesia are treated as individuals by the government, so they can run in a political campaign or do whatever is needed. It is the corporate church that is inferior to the government, not the ecclesia.

In China, they have a "licensed church" and the unlicensed church. Both are persecuted, but more tolerance is for the licensed church.

My question for you is, "Why were the 1st century Christians persecuted by Rome above the religions of Mithras or Isis?" If they were following Romans 13, and paying their tributes, then why were they persecuted?
Why did Constantine never persecute the members of his state run Catholic church, only the heretics?
Why were the pilgrims and separatists persecuted in England by King James?
Why were the anabaptists persecuted, if they weren't harming anyone?
Why are no churches persecuted today?
What has ended the persecution of Christians today, and why were they persecuted in all of history, but not now?

[JohnH]

John hurt,
You may want to pause and consider that many Chinese consider the “unlicensed” church to be thoroughly infiltrated by the American government. I’m not sure that’s morally superior to being sanctioned by the Chinese government.

[ohio jones]

Taking the tax deduction is an error just like taking the 501(c)3 status.

I haven't itemised deductions in years. I think I did 25 years ago, but it's been so long that I can't remember.

In any case, there is nothing wrong or immoral about deducting a donation.

I think it might actually be wrong NOT to deduct a donation if you are eligible to do so. In the past, contributions were deductible only if the taxpayer itemized, and for most people the standard deduction was more beneficial. But starting in 2026, donations up to $1000 ($2000 married filing jointly) are deductible even if you don't itemize.

The math works like this: Let's say you are married filing jointly, and in the 20% tax bracket. There isn't one, but let's keep the math simple; the principle is the same regardless of the bracket.

You can give $1000 to the church and not take a deduction.

Or you can give $1250 to the church and claim the deduction, which reduces your tax bill by $250 (20% of $1250). The church gets $250 more, the government gets $250 less, and the net cost to you is the same. Why would anyone not do that?

[JohnHurt]

John hurt,
You may want to pause and consider that many Chinese consider the “unlicensed” church to be thoroughly infiltrated by the American government. I’m not sure that’s morally superior to being sanctioned by the Chinese government.

The True Church cannot be infiltrated. God knows those that are His. Numbers 16:5, quoted in 2 Tim 2:19.
But you are correct, the corporate church has always been infiltrated by many, many unChristian people. There is no perfect corporate church.

Our problem is that we are following "other Gods" which breaks the 1st Commandment.

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

Apotheosis - (From Wikipedia)

Apotheosis (from Ancient Greek ἀποθέωσις (apothéōsis), from ἀποθεόω/ἀποθεῶ (apotheóō/apotheô) 'to deify'), also called divinization or deification (from Latin deificatio 'making divine'), is the glorification of a subject to divine levels and, commonly, the treatment of a human being, any other living thing, or an abstract idea in the likeness of a deity.

Inside the US Capitol, at the top of the Rotunda is this painting called "The Apotheosis of George Washington", where George is made into a "god."



Perhaps it is not George's fault, but they made him into a "god" regardless.

There are many "god like" statutes in the US Capitol of various "law makers", the men who "make law" for other men:



These graven images represent the "gods" of our society.

Elohiym means "god", in the sense of lawmaker, and it can apply to humans that execute God's Law as in the "judges" in Exodus 21:6, Ex 22:8-9.

But when men create new laws that contradict the Law of YHVH, they are no longer a judge, but their own "god" or lawmaker.

This is when we "serve other gods" as lawmakers:

1 Sam 8:(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.

Paul was correct in his statement:

1 Cor 6:(14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

(15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

(16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

(18) And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

The US Capitol is a temple of idols, as is almost all of Washington DC. Many of the "idols" are flesh and blood.

The Dragon in Rev 12:9 is Satan. To me, the Beast of Rev 13 is man's government without God as its leader. The Dragon or Satan gives the Beast its power and authority. Rev 13:2, and you cannot make war against the beast. verse 4

This interpretation matches the 2nd Temptation of Christ in Luke 4.

The Beast makes war against the Saints, and has power over everyone not written in the Book of Life. Rev 13:7-8

The second Beast with the horns like a lamb is the false religious system, which causes many to worship the first beast, which I believe is the government of men. Rev 13:12 The two horned lamb beast is every religion that makes people worship the government of man as supreme.

I won't have anything to do with either beast.

God has told us to make no covenants with the ungodly. Deut 7:2, Judges 2:2

But even if the USA became committed to following God's Laws and not man, I still would not take the 501(c)3 because it puts the governments of men in the position of dictating to a church what is and is not allowed by man, when this power should be with YHVH and no other.

[JohnH]

So, what organisational structure do you use for your church?

[JohnHurt]

Taking the tax deduction is an error just like taking the 501(c)3 status.

I haven't itemised deductions in years. I think I did 25 years ago, but it's been so long that I can't remember.

In any case, there is nothing wrong or immoral about deducting a donation.

I think it might actually be wrong NOT to deduct a donation if you are eligible to do so. In the past, contributions were deductible only if the taxpayer itemized, and for most people the standard deduction was more beneficial. But starting in 2026, donations up to $1000 ($2000 married filing jointly) are deductible even if you don't itemize.

The math works like this: Let's say you are married filing jointly, and in the 20% tax bracket. There isn't one, but let's keep the math simple; the principle is the same regardless of the bracket.

You can give $1000 to the church and not take a deduction.

Or you can give $1250 to the church and claim the deduction, which reduces your tax bill by $250 (20% of $1250). The church gets $250 more, the government gets $250 less, and the net cost to you is the same. Why would anyone not do that?

Because you cannot donate in secret. Matt 6:1-4