Originally posted by Joel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostOriginally posted by Joelwe cannot hope to submit to governing authorities if we cannot identify governing authorities.
We are to submit because we engage in trade/commerce/providing for our bodily needs, and government exists in part to regulate that.
The death penalty was rather more prevalent in his day. He is agreeing that those who rebel against the government by refusing to pay taxes are worthy of punishment.
"if we suppose that believers in Christ are not subject to secular authorities, that they do not have to pay taxes, that they are not required to pay out revenues, and that they owe no one fear or honor,...there would be a case against them worthy of death"
That doesn't seem like that follows. How does not being subject to X imply that it is obligatory (even to death) to submit to X? Suppose similarly that One Bad Pig is not subject to Joel. Therefore there is a case against One Bad Pig worthy of death? If Joel turns his weapons against One Bad Pig (because One Bad Pig is not subject to Joel), it is done deservedly? And Joel would be justified and One Bod Pig would be guilty? Origen's reasoning there makes no sense.
Originally posted by JoelOn the other hand, if these are argument pertaining only to governing authorities, then they are dependent on first being able to identify governing authorities.
If no, then I claim to be a governing authority over you, and insist that you send me $100 in taxes immediately.
If yes, then there is a question regarding which claims are true and which are not.
And the question does not have an immediately obvious answer. What is it that makes such a claim true? Is it having royal blood/genes? Or are men by nature equal in jurisdiction? If the latter, then what decisions/actions by men can alter/abolish this natural equality so as to establish rule/subjection? Conquest/force? A majority deciding to rule over a minority (majoritarianism)? These are forms of might-makes-right, and seem inconsistent with Romans 13. Given a set of people initially equal (i.e. without a human ruler) how does a ruler (inequality) arise among them without injustice, apart from unanimous consent. And even the case of unanimous consent might be doubted: Does God rubber-stamp (and establish) whatever a group of humans unanimously happen to agree to? Is there scriptural basis for that?
In my OP, I tried to derive an answer to the question from Romans 13, which seems to say that governing authority is equivalent to enforcing justice.
Comment
-
You said about 13:1
The last (third) statement there can be equivalently written as:
P1b) If X is an authority, then X is established by God.
The problem in Rome being discussed here was the refusal of these Christians to pay taxes to Caesar.
If this is not the context, what are you imagining that Paul is trying to fix among these Christians?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYou analysis (which I only quote for partially) would seem to make void the very thing Paul was admonishing his audience about.
Paul was not giving a method to define a legitimate government.
I think we must first focus on the meaning in the original context. And we can't do this by nullifying the significance of the text for the first century audience.
For application today, you have to be careful not to assume there is a definition of legitimate government in the epistle. It may be that the text only applies to the first century context.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostThere is no authority except from God so rulers are given authority to see that the people under them do what God wants and if they don't then the ruler punishes them because they have authorityto do this. Now an evil ruler is one who is usurping God's authority by getting people to do his own will rather than God's.
People are subject to their rulers not only because of wrath but also conscience (v.5) so ideally the subject doesn't do the will of the ruler because he is fearful of punishment but because he agrees inwardly with what is being asked because both he and the ruler submit to God.
However an evil ruler will cause a conflict of conscience because although he has authority to rule he is abusing that authority because he is not imposing what he is expected to but something of his own authority.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThe context points to the Roman authorities. They exist and are an authority. Therefore they were established by God.
How then do you deal with the later verses that would say, For Nero who commits atrocities against Christians is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of Nero? Do what is good and you will have praise from Nero; for Nero is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for Nero does not bear the sword for nothing; for Nero is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil....for Nero is a servant of God, devoting himself to this very thing? How do you deal with that, if not as I have done in the OP?
The problem in Rome being discussed here was the refusal of these Christians to pay taxes to Caesar.
If this is not the context, what are you imagining that Paul is trying to fix among these Christians?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostNot if, as the general thrust of the chapter is, as it seems to be, telling people to be good: don't murder, don't steal. Which is the same thing as to obey governing authorities. I'm suggesting that the point of the governing authorities passage, in the middle of telling people to be good (prior to and after bringing up governing authorities), is as an additional argument and spur towards being good.
Perhaps, but he does make repeated, strong statements about governing authorities. How do you deal with these statements in your suggested interpretations?
That is a possibility.
Basically for the whole letter I have found a stream of issues that Paul saw as problematic behavior and attitudes of these Roman Christians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostThat would be an additional premise derived from the context of the epistle's audience. And may be a matter of debate.
Originally posted by Joel View PostHow then do you deal with the later verses that would say, For Nero who commits atrocities against Christians is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of Nero? Do what is good and you will have praise from Nero; for Nero is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for Nero does not bear the sword for nothing; for Nero is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil....for Nero is a servant of God, devoting himself to this very thing? How do you deal with that, if not as I have done in the OP?.
The use of the indicative mood probably was used simply to state the basic rule "you pay taxes." It was not necessarily saying "you have been paying and you continue to pay"
And you question about there being a problem in Rome ... I can only say, for sake of brevity, that Paul had approached the whole letter in a fashion that was as non-confrontational as possible. This is a technique I have seen also in Gal 2:15-21 concerning a rebuke of Peter.
Comment
-
mikewhitney shows that we should check the context of Romans 13. At least look at Chapter 12. I will do so tomorrow.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Rom 12-13 context and continuity
I have my overview of Romans at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
and an outline at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
Here is part of the outline at 12
V. Additional Issues of Behavior of Roman Believers (12 to 14)
___A.Lack of Serving One Another (12:1-16)
___B.Problem of treatment of enemies (12:17-21, 13:1-6)
______i.Have good behavior among evil men (12:17-21)
______ii. Have good behavior with government (13:1-7)
___C. Problem of maintaining love in the evils of the day (13 :8- 14)
______i. Love (13:8-10)
______ii. Darkness of the days (13:11-14)
___D. Stop judging each other for self-pride (14:1-18)
As seen here, I find a series of attitudinal/functional problems being addressed regarding the Roman Christians.
I noticed that it is far from explicit concerning the issue about non-payment of taxes. However, there are pieces from the letter that I combine (in my head, at least) to come to this conclusion. Partly 2:19 suggests that the Roman Christians were trying to avenge wrongs done to them, which likely consisted of persecution by the governing authorities -- or maybe harassment and bullying. The Christians then may have been avoiding the tax collector, which resulted in more harassment. I see Paul's injection of a discussion on taxes seems only to be needed in response to a problem of nonpayment by these Christians -- otherwise Paul could have skipped the irritating discussion of taxes here -- which would make the text more acceptable to the Romans. Since, how could the additional discussion on taxes make the audience more acceptable of Paul's point about governing authorities being necessary?
Furthermore, Paul goes on to say "owe no one" which lends further credence to the idea that the Roman Christians were still owing Caesar his taxes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI have my overview of Romans at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
and an outline at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
Here is part of the outline at 12
V. Additional Issues of Behavior of Roman Believers (12 to 14)
___A.Lack of Serving One Another (12:1-16)
___B.Problem of treatment of enemies (12:17-21, 13:1-6)
______i.Have good behavior among evil men (12:17-21)
______ii. Have good behavior with government (13:1-7)
___C. Problem of maintaining love in the evils of the day (13 :8- 14)
______i. Love (13:8-10)
______ii. Darkness of the days (13:11-14)
___D. Stop judging each other for self-pride (14:1-18)
As seen here, I find a series of attitudinal/functional problems being addressed regarding the Roman Christians.
I noticed that it is far from explicit concerning the issue about non-payment of taxes. However, there are pieces from the letter that I combine (in my head, at least) to come to this conclusion. Partly 2:19 suggests that the Roman Christians were trying to avenge wrongs done to them, which likely consisted of persecution by the governing authorities -- or maybe harassment and bullying. The Christians then may have been avoiding the tax collector, which resulted in more harassment. I see Paul's injection of a discussion on taxes seems only to be needed in response to a problem of nonpayment by these Christians -- otherwise Paul could have skipped the irritating discussion of taxes here -- which would make the text more acceptable to the Romans. Since, how could the additional discussion on taxes make the audience more acceptable of Paul's point about governing authorities being necessary?
Furthermore, Paul goes on to say "owe no one" which lends further credence to the idea that the Roman Christians were still owing Caesar his taxes.
I also mentioned before that I don't see a big break between verse 7 and 8 like you show in your outline. It seems continuous: obey the law (that's all that governing authorities enforce), followed by more details about what the law is: the law of justice, which is in turn subsumed in the law of love. "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."
As for "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law," as I mentioned in the OP, it's not clear whether that means not accruing debt in the first place or not delaying payment on existing debts. But the language here makes it seem like it's the former. Loving one's neighbor is fulfillment of the law. It is sufficient. The implication then is that 'owing something other than love to someone' would be an unnecessary additional moral requirement. On the contrary, avoid it.
Also I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostThere isn't so much of a discussion on taxes as two mentions of taxes, in passing. The first is used in a supporting argument. If mention of taxes is irritating and would make the text less acceptable to the Romans, as you suggest, then why would he refer to taxes in a supporting argument? Thus that could be taken as evidence that its mention made the text more acceptable. (Which I referred to in my OP.)
My observation is that each major issue addressed by Paul in Romans is addressed in an indirect manner. This is why commentators have missed the gist of his argument and missed the nature of the problems being addressed. In my proposal, Paul was aware of the gentile followers' disdain for Jews. The letter would hardly have been accepted by the Roman gentiles if Paul had not been very careful in his approach -- this is something which arises mostly in the discussion of Rom 1-2.
In the outline on my website, I highlight certain phrases so as to indicate that this was the main issue addressed by Paul. What is unusual is that these issues are usually found in a minor position in the outline. It is in the fashion that I have found continuity in the letter and was able to form the outline I did.
More specific to Rom 13 on the tax issue ... Paul added humor by speaking tax collector "attending continually upon this very thing"(KJV). This point seems to highlight that the tax collectors are always getting into people's business -- which is a negative element. (The humor is present through emphasis of the blatant excessive intrusion of these guys into the affairs of the citizens -- "yes of course the tax guy is here again. haha".)
Of course I have already stated the other reasons which make it apparent there is a problem of the Christians not paying taxes.
The main thing for your argument is to consider the following:
I think on your part you need to show the continuity with Rom 12. What is the unifying theme? What preserves a sense of direction across Rom 12-14?
I also mentioned before that I don't see a big break between verse 7 and 8 like you show in your outline. It seems continuous: obey the law (that's all that governing authorities enforce), followed by more details about what the law is: the law of justice, which is in turn subsumed in the law of love. "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."
As for "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law," as I mentioned in the OP, it's not clear whether that means not accruing debt in the first place or not delaying payment on existing debts. But the language here makes it seem like it's the former. Loving one's neighbor is fulfillment of the law. It is sufficient. The implication then is that 'owing something other than love to someone' would be an unnecessary additional moral requirement. On the contrary, avoid it.
As I see it, the only real reasons Paul spoke about "owning no one" was to first emphasize their problem of not paying taxes and secondly to transition to the conclusion about love. There was no other concern raised about people not paying their debts.
Also I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostSure, but the ruler, in doing the latter, is acting outside his authority. Yes? He doesn't have the authority to usurp God's authority (by definition of "usurp"). In that action, he is not acting in his capacity, role, or authority as ruler. It is not he as a ruler that does it, but he as a human acting unjustly.
Paul doesn't say "ideally". Paul says that's the way it is.
There is no "his own" authority contrary to his authority from God. There is no authority except from God. Therefore his abusing his authority from God (i.e. imposing something other than what he has the authority to impose), is to act without/outside authority, yes?
William Barclay in his commentary on Romans says the Jews were notoriously rebellious. The Zealots were convinced there was no King but God and had issues with paying tax to Caesar and that this is the type of thing Paul had in mind and which he wanted to dissociate from. The Roman state offered people protection (Paul appealed to Rome to hear his legal case) and it afforded a stable environment which was advantageous to preaching the Gospel, however as Christianity had its roots in the Jews and, though a Roman citizen, Paul was Jewish, he could hardly be publishing letters talking about how people should act under evil rulers blah blah and not incur Caesar's wrath. It is there IMO in verse 5 but subversively. We are in the world not of the world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abigail View PostYes but regardless of how the ruler acts he has been given authority over the people he rules. This is separate from his actions as ruler. He has been appointed ruler and he either rules as a good shepherd ir a worthless one. We are all under God's authority but only rulers have been given authority to rule.
William Barclay in his commentary on Romans says the Jews were notoriously rebellious. The Zealots were convinced there was no King but God and had issues with paying tax to Caesar and that this is the type of thing Paul had in mind and which he wanted to dissociate from. The Roman state offered people protection (Paul appealed to Rome to hear his legal case) and it afforded a stable environment which was advantageous to preaching the Gospel, however as Christianity had its roots in the Jews and, though a Roman citizen, Paul was Jewish, he could hardly be publishing letters talking about how people should act under evil rulers blah blah and not incur Caesar's wrath. It is there IMO in verse 5 but subversively. We are in the world not of the world.
I would add to this that there was the need for the Christians to be distinct from the Jews during the time of the Jewish uprisings of the first century. This would be a possible motivator for Paul to make sure the Christians in Rome were not found to have a bad attitude toward the Roman government.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThe main thing for your argument is to consider the following:
I think on your part you need to show the continuity with Rom 12. What is the unifying theme? What preserves a sense of direction across Rom 12-14?
Originally posted by JoelAlso I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.
The Roman empire was believed to have never done anything unjust up to the time of the epistle? What about Pharaoh? Or Philistine kings? Surely Paul was aware of actions of rulers past and present, that would seem to contradict what he says about rulers.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
35 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
179 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
339 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
354 responses
17,223 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 02:01 PM
|
Comment