Originally posted by Joel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)
Collapse
X
-
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWell, it helps not to paint in broad strokes of black and white. And I'm not sure who you're labeling "statists" - it's not as if most commentators on the text are doing so with the intent of imposing statism. IMO it's something of a mistake to take vv. 1-2 strictly literally, as the implication of the verses immediately following is that the governing authorities punish evil and reward good. If they've got that backwards, that doesn't mean we should go along with them. Of course, that doesn't mean we should go looking for excuses to delegitimatize them either. Paul appealed to the authorities (both Jewish and Roman) multiple times in Acts, and clearly saw them as legitimate - despite being beaten several times and imprisoned.
Exceptions are typically allowed only in the case where Nero's order contradicts God's command.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostHere is an interesting story about a Rabbi Benjamin Roth who wrote a letter in 1938 to his synagogue from a Nazi concentration camp. It contained simply Romans 13:1-7 with the appropriate substitutions for Hitler and Nazi.https://jesusontaxes.liberty.me/germany-131-7/
I suggest clicking the link and reading the whole passage to feel the sense of it, which is extreme irony.
The letter "was seen immediately...for the irony that it was meant to be." I've seen some people suggest that 1st century Christians under Nero would likely have read Paul's passage making a similar mental substitution and likewise interpreted Paul to be speaking with the same irony as Rabbi Benjamin Roth.
(This is different from the interpretation I was suggesting earlier in this thread, which was to interpret Paul literally, in which case it logically follows that Hitler and Nero were not actually rulers/authorities.")
Comment
-
Is anyone familiar with the Mandate of heaven? I think this concept may have some applicability to Romans 13:1-7.-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostThough Joel Jesus was persecuted and crucified by the Jewish and Roman authorities and yet He still said to Pilate that he (Pilate) only had the authority he had because God had given it to him (John 19:11). Everyone except God has an authority over them and if someone does good then they should not be fearful of the authority. Jesus was not fearful before Pilate. Jesus also told Peter to put his sword away when the guard came for Him. So everyone who is harmed by an authority is not always being punished. Sometimes they are (and they will know they have done wrong) and sometimes they arent (Jesus who was righteous). When the person on the receiving end is righteous then the authority is revealed as unrighteous and they will be answerable to an authority above them.
One option is to say that might makes right, thus there is no difference between the two. In which case it would seem to follow that Paul is teaching total pacifism.
But if there is a difference, then Jesus might have been referring to just Pilate's force majeure over Jesus, and God's allowing or ordaining all things including people doing evil, and working all things toward His good. (Or Jesus could have been narrowly referring to God ordaining this specific circumstance as part of the plan of redemption, rather than his statement presupposing a general principle).
What is the meaning of Jesus' follow-up comment: "...for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."? It was the Jewish authorities that delivered Jesus to Pilate. Do they not likewise have their authority given to them from above? I'm not sure what Jesus means here. Why is theirs the greater sin?
My best guess is that perhaps Jesus is saying that Pilate wouldn't have this power over Jesus at that moment if Jesus were elsewhere--if Jesus hadn't been delivered into Pilate's hands. And so the reason that the greater sin is the Jewish leaders' is that if they hadn't delivered Jesus, Jesus would not be in Pilate's power in the first place. (Presumably "from above" then indicates that that this situation is part of God's plan.)
I also wonder about the next verse, "As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him". Was it because it reminded Pilate that the only reason Jesus was there in his power was because the Jewish leaders brought him there (and not because he was found guilty of breaking any Roman law)?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostIs anyone familiar with the Mandate of heaven? I think this concept may have some applicability to Romans 13:1-7.
Comment
-
My understanding is that the Greek "exousia" can mean mere might or authority, and I find it not straightforward how to distinguish them either in theory or in practice. It raises many difficult questions regarding how they differ.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostMy understanding is that the Greek "exousia" can mean mere might or authority, and I find it not straightforward how to distinguish them either in theory or in practice. It raises many difficult questions regarding how they differ.
One option is to say that might makes right, thus there is no difference between the two. In which case it would seem to follow that Paul is teaching total pacifism.
But if there is a difference, then Jesus might have been referring to just Pilate's force majeure over Jesus, and God's allowing or ordaining all things including people doing evil, and working all things toward His good. (Or Jesus could have been narrowly referring to God ordaining this specific circumstance as part of the plan of redemption, rather than his statement presupposing a general principle).
What is the meaning of Jesus' follow-up comment: "...for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."? It was the Jewish authorities that delivered Jesus to Pilate. Do they not likewise have their authority given to them from above? I'm not sure what Jesus means here. Why is theirs the greater sin?
My best guess is that perhaps Jesus is saying that Pilate wouldn't have this power over Jesus at that moment if Jesus were elsewhere--if Jesus hadn't been delivered into Pilate's hands. And so the reason that the greater sin is the Jewish leaders' is that if they hadn't delivered Jesus, Jesus would not be in Pilate's power in the first place. (Presumably "from above" then indicates that that this situation is part of God's plan.)
I also wonder about the next verse, "As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him". Was it because it reminded Pilate that the only reason Jesus was there in his power was because the Jewish leaders brought him there (and not because he was found guilty of breaking any Roman law)?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostMaybe "statist" is not the correct term. I was referring to common interpretations that seem to want to say that Nero (and the King of England, and the U.S. federal government) is an authority, you must submit to Nero, you must pay what Nero demands of you, you must give Nero honor, etc.
Exceptions are typically allowed only in the case where Nero's order contradicts God's command.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Ah - butPeter and John, when ordered not to preach, said nothing about the authorities doing to ordering being illegitimate.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostIt's "(conferred) power・authority" ... also licence, office, magistracy, "the authorities". The "power to do" is δυναμις. For a demonstration of the interplay, see Luke 4:36
1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
leave or permission
2. physical and mental power
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...s/exousia.html
If it is always authority conferred by God, does God ever confer an authority to do wrong/injustice?
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThese are common interpretations because they're sort of obviously what the text means, Joel.
When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Caesar, he said nothing about, "only if Caeasar is good."
Jesus submitted to the Sanhedrin (obviously not good) and to Pilate (went along with the Jewish leadership's demands to save his own skin, arguably not good either).
And in Matt 17, Jesus taught Peter that they were exempt from the temple tax, but they paid it anyway, just so as not to cause offense.
And I had always been taught that Jesus submitted to crucifixion for the sake of the plan of salvation, and not out of lack of power or having to submit.
It seems there are many reasons/occasions for submitting to others. And so it's not obvious that a case of submission is because of authority.
Peter and John, when ordered not to preach, said nothing about the authorities doing to ordering being illegitimate.
Your idea that governments are only legitimate if they are good disregards all that, let alone being manifest eisegesis of Rom. 13 and 1 Pet. 2.
Submit "whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men." (emphasis mine)
So in both passages, authority is, consistently, authority for a defined, specific thing (i.e. to do good/justice).
Then 1 Peter 2 goes on in that passage to say we should submit even to evildoers (e.g. slavers), even "when suffering unjustly" and "when you do what is right and suffer for it". That is, authority is not the only reason or occasion one ought to submit. We are to turn the other cheek to evildoers and injustice.
Your idea that governments are only legitimate if they are good ...Precious few governments could be considered wholly good, let alone those with which Peter, Paul, and their audience were familiar.
For example, I presume that you would say that President Trump has authority, but his authority is limited. He doesn't have authority to command you to bow to him, so your submitting to such a command would not be submission to authority. For an example on the other side, it is said that he has authority to command the armed forces of the U.S., in which case their submissions to such commands would be submission to authority. But even then, surely he has no authority to order them to violate the Constitution. Submitting to such an order would not be submission to authority. On the contrary, they'd have a duty to disobey such an order. Rather than saying that that is an exception to the rule of submitting to an authority (Trump), I think it much more reasonable to say that in such a case Trump would be acting without authority.
Well, that rather puts paid to your assertion that "statists" are interpreting vv. 1-2 strictly literally.
The emphasis in my mind was more that they have to interpret most of the passage figuratively.
Also, once you say that following the command of vv. 1-2 is not always required, then the door is open in every case to discern whether it is required in that case. Which is not so different from my view, that each case requires discernment (about whether it is a case of authority or not).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostReally? This lexicon here includes the following possible definitions:
1. power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
leave or permission
2. physical and mental power
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...s/exousia.html
If it is always authority conferred by God, does God ever confer an authority to do wrong/injustice?1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
39 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-16-2024, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
341 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
367 responses
17,327 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:55 AM
|
Comment