Divine Right

[KingsGambit]

The Bible seems to suggest that earthly rulers have been appointed by God and it is wrong to disobey them. See Romans 13:1-6


This all seems to suggest that God has given authority to national leaders today and in the past, and even if they do things we think is wrong, it is right to obey them. So did God appoint people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, King George III, King Leopold, etc. to rule over the people's they did, and would those people have been wrong to protest and rise up against them? As a deist, I think the notion of divine right is bunk because I don't believe God intervenes directly in human affairs, but it seems to me that the Christian position would support it. In which case things like the American Revolution go against Christian teaching. But somehow I never hear the religious right saying anything about that. What are your thoughts on divine right?

There are two parts of the New Testament that have a lot to say about government. One obviously is Romans here, but the other is Revelation. The two books differ in context - Romans was written during a peaceful time for Christians, and Revelation came about in the context of persecution. Here, the tenor is different; there is no hint of the government's actions being divinely ordained but rather of them facing divine judgment in due time. Christian listeners are urged to hold on to their faith and resist evil in all ways, and are not to actively participate in evil actions (remember that Acts 5:29 says "we must obey God rather than men"). So in practical terms, Christians are not to just blindly go along with everything a government says just because of Romans.

Though people differ in how to interpret Revelation, I think this general message is clear regardless.

[stfoskey15]

Prima facie assessment would indicate that any and all authorities are ordained by God and should be heeded. However, there is no evidence that any Christian of New Testament times regarded a corrupted ruler as a higher authority - quite the opposite in fact - there are a number of occasions on which Christians (including the author of this passage) defied rulers who handed down unlawful (by Christian assessment) edicts.
A single statement that is part of a composite concept can be misleading in any field: verse 3 does restrict the scope of verse 1. The Koine Greek passage is rather convoluted though - so while I am confident that the broad outline is correct, it would take some intensive examination before I could provide a more complete answer.

So it seems like the passage is somewhat poorly written and generalizes too much.

The whole of the Bible makes it clear that God is the ultimate authority, and that there is no expectation that a Christian follow the edicts of an earthy ruler if they are contrary to the commands of God. The Bible is full of examples of Godly men defying the authorities in exactly that circumstance.

But nice job trying to play "Gotcha!" while exposing your own ignorance.

Well this passage and those other passages seem to be contradictory then.

Yes, really, because you're ignoring the cultural context within which the scriptures were written and demanding explicitness and precision that was not expected or needed by the writers or their audience.

I've given you what you need to understand this passage, but as the saying goes, you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

If the Bible is the word of God, the audience would be everyone for the next two thousand plus years. So the writers should have received enough divine guidance to figure out that Christian rulers would later misinterpret the passage.

Plan B - stop reading hyper-literally. God's appointment of authority does not give that authority the right to do wrong - quite the opposite.

Divine right of kings is not in view here - that's a later interpretation and a bad one. Read the Old Testament - if God's appointment were also license, why does He keep disposing of the ones that do wrong?

In the case of the American Revolution, the argument was that KC wasn't fulfilling his end of this bargain - the 'for he is God's servant for your good' bit. The ruler is subject to God - and if he fails obviously to keep God's laws, he loses the right of rule.

I wasn't trying to say God would give rulers the right to do wrong, but instead that people should obey them whether they're right or wrong.

I don't think it's unsound in this case. Paul's homily doesn't seem to leave any room for opposition, at least not explicitly. If the situation in the colonies was no worse, that seems to leave no contextual justification for "overturning" Paul's instructions.

(To lay my cards on the table, I think the American Revolution was quite obviously unbiblical.)

Interesting.

Also, this is a bit of a different question, but do you all think Paul and others believed violence was sometimes necessary to overthrow unjust rulers/prevent them from acting unjustly? That seems to go against the largely pacifist nature of the New Testament, but I'm wondering what you all think.

[KingsGambit]

Also, this is a bit of a different question, but do you all think Paul and others believed violence was sometimes necessary to overthrow unjust rulers/prevent them from acting unjustly? That seems to go against the largely pacifist nature of the New Testament, but I'm wondering what you all think.

I don't know. I don't have an affirmative reason to say that he did though it's possible. Paul was willing to fight for his legal rights when he was arrested (by invoking his Roman citizenship) so he wasn't a total pushover.

[Teallaura]

...


I wasn't trying to say God would give rulers the right to do wrong, but instead that people should obey them whether they're right or wrong.



...

It's effectively the same thing.

[KingsGambit]

It's effectively the same thing.

Is it? In the aforementioned Acts passage we see a precedent for allowing rulers to be disobeyed in certain circumstances (as well as in Daniel with the fiery furnace).

[stfoskey15]

I don't know. I don't have an affirmative reason to say that he did though it's possible. Paul was willing to fight for his legal rights when he was arrested (by invoking his Roman citizenship) so he wasn't a total pushover.

But invoking one's citizenship isn't very violent is it?

It's effectively the same thing.

I mean, one could argue that it's a problem best left to God and not humans.

[KingsGambit]

But invoking one's citizenship isn't very violent is it?.

Not at all. I'm just trying to demonstrate that he didn't have a complete "turn the other cheek" view to avoid resisting any evil done to one whatsoever.

[Terraceth]

I feel this article makes some interesting points.

[demi-conservative]

The Bible seems to suggest that earthly rulers have been appointed by God and it is wrong to disobey them

Basically, you have idea that 'being subject to someone' or 'under authority of someone', like say your father or teacher when you is kid, means that you have to obey everything he asks you to do. You assume this is true. Then surprise, you 'find it' in Bible because you assume it!!

Then because you start off with wrong assumption you find '''''''contradiction'''''''. 'So problem must be in text, not with me!!!'

[Mountain Man]

Well this passage and those other passages seem to be contradictory then.

They may seem to be with a plain reading lacking nuance, but a deeper contextual analysis, such as what I've described, shows that there's no contradiction. The Bible makes it clear we are to obey God first, man second, always and without exception in that order, and that man's commands can never supersede the commands of God.

If the Bible is the word of God, the audience would be everyone for the next two thousand plus years. So the writers should have received enough divine guidance to figure out that Christian rulers would later misinterpret the passage.

There is nothing in the Bible to prevent even the plainest passage of scripture from being misinterpreted, nor does the Bible itself promise that such misinterpretations are impossible and repeatedly warns us to beware of false teachers. Like with any other pursuit of knowledge and truth, the responsibility is ours to ensure a proper understanding.

[Tassman]

There is nothing in the Bible to prevent even the plainest passage of scripture from being misinterpreted, nor does the Bible itself promise that such misinterpretations are impossible and repeatedly warns us to beware of false teachers. Like with any other pursuit of knowledge and truth, the responsibility is ours to ensure a proper understanding.

Different and contradictory interpretations have been the norm throughout Christian history; hence the very large number of denominations. And there can be no way to reach agreement when members of competing denominations hold beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

[NorrinRadd]

...

(To lay my cards on the table, I think the American Revolution was quite obviously unbiblical.)

Even if it was, so what?

[tabibito]

A general comment on Luther and translating the problem away

Remember when it comes to translating the original text: Martin Luther who held the interpretation already pointed to actually translated the Bible into German language. This translation is regarded as of very, very high quality even in modern time. So even if you can point to some nuances in ancient Hellenistic language it still does not get us beyond the point where that point was seemingly lost on someone why certainly did not lack the skill of understanding the language. I am not disputing that he lacked quite many other skills and generally is a disgrace (which is why one wonders why he is so highly regarded in the Church).

Luther changed the wording of key texts to make them fit his theology. He also removed certain books from the canon, and failed to remove as many as he wanted to: James being one such. Objections to removal of that epistle having prevailed, he declared it an epistle of straw.

[tabibito]

First: I would very much like to see a source pointing to that because every source I can find translates πασα into "all, every, each" or words along those lines with no exceptions mentioned. Here is just one example but I actually did some searching and I found nothing to support your claim: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%E1%BE%B6%CF%82

Translation dictionaries rarely give all the nuances possible for a given word*. If you consider some of the circumstances in which "all" is used (as hyperbole, for example) you will note that even in English, "all" does not invariably exclude possible exceptions. Usage patterns of the "pas, pasa, pan" group and "holos" can be determined simply by referring to various passages where they clearly denote the existence of exceptions. However with regard to Romans 13:1, Paul requires that "every soul" be in subjection to "superior authorities," and he is not exempting himself, nor any other, from that requirement, - which raises the issue of whether he understood the statement to mean what you consider it to mean. Given that Paul, the founding apostles, and various other disciples on occasion defied the governing authorities (when the latter were in the wrong), it would seem self evident that Paul did not intend that "superior authorities" (assuming that they are in fact the "governing authorities") must be heeded, right or wrong.

Fourth: That could be the case. However it could also be the case that the text simply says what you get the impression it says by reading it in the translated version. It seems you presuppose that it cannot be the case. That seems a bit biased.

Except that I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to the translated version: I'm examining the Koine Greek texts.
This passage makes its main point in the first sentence. The balance of the paragraph gives exposition of the main point - which is standard procedure. Divorcing the main point from its expository follow-up works to advantage in a court-room from time to time, but it isn't a process that yields an honest result.

Simple examples of divorcing point from exposition:
Acts 2:8 "And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" Look up some commentaries, and you'll find it claimed (in words to the effect) that "God made it possible for the listeners to hear the disciples' speech in their (the listener's) own tongues. God did not confer the gift of speaking in other tongues upon the disciples (on this occasion)" My answer to that claim: "What do Acts 2:6 and 11 say? - "heard them speak in their own tongues" do they not?" Look up some translations and you'll find "them speak" interpolated into Acts 2:8 ... not in the original texts, just necessary because some commentators simply don't employ basic reading comprehension skills.

More closely resembling the circumstances of comment regarding Romans 13:1

You'll find commentators saying that Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." shows the people who were listening were all born Jews ... and again the question needs asking, "what does verse 10 say? "Jews and proselytes," does it not."

---------------------------------
* naka (中) in Japanese is shown in translation dictionaries as meaning "middle, centre" which it does. What you are unlikely to find in a translation dictionary is an additional definition of "within the confines of," a very common applied use of naka. Koine Greek translation dictionaries will likewise translate μεσος (mesos) as "middle, centre" with little likelihood that any mention of further applications (beyond perhaps, "centre line, point") will be made. However, mesos translates far more readily as naka than it does as centre or middle.

[Sparko]

The bible is clear that the ruler's job is to be God's servant and do God's will:

4 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. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So as long as they do God's will then you should obey them. If they don't do God's will, and do evil instead, then you are off the hook.

We are always to obey God, not men.

An example is given in Acts, when the Sanhedrin tells the Apostles to stop preaching Jesus. They were the Authorities and they were appointed by God, but they were not doing God's will.

Acts 5:27The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!