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
See more
See less

Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    Was that a straw man? How are the conclusions reached without doing what I said?
    We could take some actual commentaries and analyze them if it would help.
    Well, 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.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    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


    • #62
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Well, 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.
      Maybe "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.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        Here 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.

        "My dear Jewish brothers and sisters,

        "Let every person be subject to Hitler and the governing Nazi authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and the Nazi authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Whoever resists Nazi authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For the Nazi rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the Nazi authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive the Nazi’s approval, for Hitler is God’s servant for your good...."
        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.")
        Though 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.

        Comment


        • #64
          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by Abigail View Post
            Though 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.
            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.

            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              Is anyone familiar with the Mandate of heaven? I think this concept may have some applicability to Romans 13:1-7.
              I hadn't heard of that before. But it seems very similar to historical Western arguments on behalf of revolution or tyrannicide: that by committing acts of injustice against the people whom the king is supposed to protect, a king un-kings himself.

              Comment


              • #67
                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.
                It'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
                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Joel View Post
                  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.

                  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)?
                  Hmmmm, since Pilate knew the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus crucified, releasing Jesus would have been the only way to prove that Pilate did indeed have authority and perhaps that is why Pilate wanted to release Him. Since he immediately encountered opposition from the crowd, maybe Pilate didn't have authority over Jesus. That he went along with it in the end showed he was unjust but it didnt necessarily show he had authority.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    Maybe "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.
                    These 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). Peter and John, when ordered not to preach, said nothing about the authorities doing to ordering being illegitimate. Paul submitted himself to both Jewish and Roman authorities, even though both persecuted him. In all the years of persecution before Constantine (as well as the years after Constantine when heretical emperors were in power), I have not seen a single intimation that the respective governments were therefore 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. Precious few governments could be considered wholly good, let alone those with which Peter, Paul, and their audience were familiar.
                    Exceptions are typically allowed only in the case where Nero's order contradicts God's command.
                    Well, that rather puts paid to your assertion that "statists" are interpreting vv. 1-2 strictly literally.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    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


                    • #70
                      Ah - but
                      Peter and John, when ordered not to preach, said nothing about the authorities doing to ordering being illegitimate.
                      neither did they obey that command: abeit, even in this, they still submitted to the penalty for that disobedience.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        It'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
                        Really? 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?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          These are common interpretations because they're sort of obviously what the text means, Joel.
                          Not obvious. As I pointed out, one cannot get to that interpretation without supplying additional premises (that aren't in the text), and by taking most of the passage figuratively. It's not obvious that one should do that. If instead we take the passage at its face value, we are forced to different conclusions.

                          When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Caesar, he said nothing about, "only if Caeasar is good."
                          That's another big discussion, but, in short, Jesus didn't actually answer the question. He said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. To get to an answer, one has to supply additional premises, regarding what is Caesar's and what is God's. You may find your supplied premises to be obvious. Others do not. It's not obvious that 1st century Jews would have supplied the same premises.

                          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).
                          Jesus also taught to "resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..."
                          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.
                          They answered, "We must obey God rather than men." And numerous cases of Christians throughout the persecutions running afoul of the law. So either they thought the order/law in question was not legitimate, or they must conclude (agreeing with Romans 13) that the order/law came from God ("For there is no authority except from God"), and that they were disobeying a command of God (whoever resists "has opposed the ordinance of God"). Or, as you suggest, they must take Romans 13:1-2 as being not always true/required.

                          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.
                          Deriving the interpretation from 1 Peter 2 has the same issues as Romans 13 (e.g. requiring reading parts of it figuratively.)

                          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.
                          Personally (and here I'm going beyond a mere reading of Romans 13), I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing. A human person or institution with authority always has limited authority. Going beyond those limits is to act without authority. Thus one and the same person/institution can do some things with authority and some things (perhaps evil/unjust) without authority. Just because they do something unjust without authority, does not mean they aren't acting with authority in other cases. And likewise, just because they have authority in some cases doesn't mean that everything they do/command is with authority.

                          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.
                          Fine, they aren't interpreting verses 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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            Really? 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?
                            Interesting ... I'll have to investigate a bit further, it seems.
                            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, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                            35 responses
                            166 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                            4 responses
                            49 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                            Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                            10 responses
                            119 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post mikewhitney  
                            Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                            14 responses
                            71 views
                            3 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                            13 responses
                            59 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Working...
                            X