Divine Right

[Mountain Man]

Don't bother. Chuck has shown himself to be a man impervious to learning and understanding.

[Tassman]

A show of calculated contempt for a particularly stubborn and thickheaded opponent is a long and honored tradition in public debates. See the following for a comprehensive analysis of the topic:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

Ah, you're a JP Holding disciple. It shows.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

[shunyadragon]

Ah, you're a JP Holding disciple. It shows.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

A JP Holding disciple devoted clinging to him to the bitter end.

[tabibito]

I promise to prove you wrong once you give me what I asked you for. Let me repeat:

Why does Romans not allow for any exceptions? It clearly says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” There is not a single word about Christians not falling under the scope of this. Not a single word. Why?

Romans clearly states that: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” There is not a single word about the possibility of any type of government not being instituted by God. Why?

If you establish exceptions in these cases then why not in other context? All humans are sinners, or does "all" not mean "all". Jesus died for "all" people, but "all" does not mean "all"?

Give a specific answer and not some general talk about context. You never did answer in a satisfying way. Why do you seemingly contradict the Bible in this case?

"all" can be a sweeping generalisation, or hyperbolic ... even in English, and more so in Koine Greek. In Koine Greek "all" can also have the standard English meaning of no exceptions ... it's just more likely to be a sweeping generalisation.

As pointed out previously, if you don't want exceptions to the "all" in Romans, you have to allow that even emperors are subject to the command, and pagans generally as much as Christians. (the letter being directed at Christians specifically, and not to any other groups, there is already a limit to the scope of "all" in this passage.)

All humans are sinners, or does "all" not mean "all".

There are many who say that "all have sinned" does mean "all are sinners" - I fail to see the validity of the claim: it is unsupported on grammatical grounds for the statement itself, and on grounds of the broader context of scripture. Additionally, there was one (if no other) who demonstrably did not sin (Christian viewpoint, admittedly).

As for your later calls to the wider context of scripture: you have established that Paul says Christians are to be subject to even wrongful rulers - while wider context also shows that a wrongful command must be defied. This is a matter similar to situational ethics: a paradox, not a contradiction. (and yes, I do find that there are contradictions in the Bible: it is just that this isn't one of them.)

[Charles]

Again, as St. Chrysostom argued:

For there is no power, he says, but of God. What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God's wisdom. Hence he does not say, for there is no ruler but of God; but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, there is no power but of God. And the powers that be, are ordained of God. Thus when a certain wise man says, It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joins together every man that comes to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God.

According to him, when Paul refers to the "authorities" (or "powers" in the quoted translation) in Romans 13:1-2, he is referring to the fact governing authorities exist has been instituted by God, rather than saying every individual government or ruler is instituted by God, so what Paul is doing here is rejecting the idea of anarchy.

I still don't feel this is very well in line with the statement that “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." You may be able to make that case that it could be interpreted in that way. But it all depends on what you want to constitute as the context. Which verses do you read in the light of which? This is one of the reasons Luther interpreted differently. So like I said initially this is confusing at best. And the confusion it allows for cost a tremendeous amount of human beings their lives in Luther's days. So, basically, I am still wondering why the exact message of this is so well hidden.

[Charles]

As for your later calls to the wider context of scripture: you have established that Paul says Christians are to be subject to even wrongful rulers - while wider context also shows that a wrongful command must be defied. This is a matter similar to situational ethics: a paradox, not a contradiction. (and yes, I do find that there are contradictions in the Bible: it is just that this isn't one of them.)

Thank you for your reply. My main point is that Paul leaves it too open. Like I initially said this is confusing at best.

You say a wider context shows that a wrongful command must be defied. Even that will take some interpretation regarding what a wrongful command is. In Peter 2,18 it says "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." So, again, my point is different interpretations are possible. Historically the consequences of that have been catastrophic which I initially pointed to.

If this was God's clear and timeless message for us, I would have thought it would not leave us in doubt to this degree.

[Charles]

Ah, you're a JP Holding disciple. It shows.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

It is actually a rather funny though at the sime time also frustrating article to read. Thanks for sharing.

[tabibito]

Thank you for your reply. My main point is that Paul leaves it too open. Like I initially said this is confusing at best.

You say a wider context shows that a wrongful command must be defied. Even that will take some interpretation regarding what a wrongful command is. In Peter 2,18 it says "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." So, again, my point is different interpretations are possible. Historically the consequences of that have been catastrophic which I initially pointed to.

If this was God's clear and timeless message for us, I would have thought it would not leave us in doubt to this degree.

It is virtually impossible to word anything more complex than "the cat sat on the mat" in a way that is immune to re-interpretation. (second thoughts: I can see ways for that "cat on the mat" to be reinterpreted to mean something completely different.) Let's see now (putting on my theologians cap) ... the cat is obviously Christ, because it is self evident that it is not the house cat that is in view, but the big cat, which of course is a lion, which is representative of Christ as the "Lion of Judah," and of course, the "mat" is not the mat of woven fibre that one places on a floor, but a "mat" of the tangled and knotted intrigues that so plague human politics and inter-personal relationships. Further, we see that "sat on" indicates "putting a stop to something." We therefore see that when the author says "the cat sat on the mat" he really means, "Christ curbed the intrigues of the nations." (thankfully remove my theologians cap - that thing gives me a headache).

The whole "be subject to" bit takes consideration: Despite defying commands to discontinue the preaching of Christ from "higher authorities," it can be said that the disciples involved did submit to those same higher authorities (inasmuch that they did not resist the consequences for their disobedience). Christians (and others, including a Shintoist (now there's a story)) defied the Nazis by smuggling Jews out of danger.

BUT ... Where does this concept of "the divine right of kings" arise? As others in the thread have pointed out (or at least alluded to): it does not seem that the Bible extends anyone the right to indulge in unjust behaviour.

[Tassman]

I still don't feel this is very well in line with the statement that “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." You may be able to make that case that it could be interpreted in that way. But it all depends on what you want to constitute as the context. Which verses do you read in the light of which? This is one of the reasons Luther interpreted differently. So like I said initially this is confusing at best. And the confusion it allows for cost a tremendeous amount of human beings their lives in Luther's days. So, basically, I am still wondering why the exact message of this is so well hidden.

Yes! And what about our predecessors. One hundred thousand years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Us. Homo sapiens. (Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, Department of History, Hebrew University of Jerusalem). They also had structured societies. One wonders, were they also subject to authorities instituted by God? Or are we seeing yet more of the insular god of the bible ruling over the very limited, simplistic world as it was understood by the likes of Paul?

[Mountain Man]

Ah, you're a JP Holding disciple. It shows.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

A libelous article with very little truth in it. Mr. Holding (his real name) provides his own takedown of Brooks Trubee, the author of the above screed:

http://tektoonics.com/test/parody/brooksbonked.html

[One Bad Pig]

What about feudalism? Serfs weren't sinning by being serfs, but they were also oppressed. Assuming the serfs are Christian, how would you suggest they respond in such a situation? Let's pretend they've also voiced their complaints with the nobles, but the nobles ignored them.

That seems rather well covered in 1 Peter:

Source: 1 Peter 2:18-24 NKJV

18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, deal with the situation with patience and humility. Jesus says much the same thing:

Source: Luke 6:27-36

27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

© Copyright Original Source

Perhaps most directly relevant to your OP, Paul also says the same sort of thing:

Source: Rom. 12:14-21

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

© Copyright Original Source

Or what about a communist society where people are assigned jobs that aren't immoral, but that they don't have a choice in? Also, in this hypothetical situation, the communists are tolerant of religion.

Same, regardless of 'tolerance'.

[One Bad Pig]

I still don't feel this is very well in line with the statement that “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." You may be able to make that case that it could be interpreted in that way. But it all depends on what you want to constitute as the context. Which verses do you read in the light of which? This is one of the reasons Luther interpreted differently. So like I said initially this is confusing at best. And the confusion it allows for cost a tremendeous amount of human beings their lives in Luther's days. So, basically, I am still wondering why the exact message of this is so well hidden.

Luther is not exactly a good example of an unbiased interpretation of the passage, given that he was looking for an excuse to not obey papal authority. Your confusion also appears to be transparently deliberate. Your insistence that this must be interpreted strictly literally with no exceptions is the worst sort of fundamentalism. What part of "obey the authorities unless doing so causes you to disobey God" is so difficult to understand?

[Teallaura]

If the command were to be literal for all people, why does Paul himself continually disobey it by continuing to preach the Gospel?

[Charles]

Luther is not exactly a good example of an unbiased interpretation of the passage, given that he was looking for an excuse to not obey papal authority. Your confusion also appears to be transparently deliberate. Your insistence that this must be interpreted strictly literally with no exceptions is the worst sort of fundamentalism. What part of "obey the authorities unless doing so causes you to disobey God" is so difficult to understand?

Luther's interpretation of this in the context in which I mentioned it had nothing to do with his excuse to not obey papal authority. It was used against the peasants, so quite another story. I am not insisting on a specific interpretation of these words. I am insisting this is confusing. I am asking why Paul used expressions that do not really seem to allow for the interpretation many peoply in here want to make. It is easy to understand the claim "obey the authorities unless doing so causes you to disobey God". It is a little harder to understand how authorities can do so "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

[Mountain Man]

A JP Holding disciple devoted clinging to him to the bitter end.

If only you would cling to knowledge and understanding in the same fashion.