Divine Right

[stfoskey15]

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

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes; for the authorities are the ministers of God, attending to this very thing.

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?

[Charles]

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?

I often point to these verses when confronted with people who try to make the case that Christianity was very healthy for the way societies developed into a more human and democratic form. I think you ask the right questions and I would say that no matter what kind of answer you will receive there is always a case to be made that this is at best confusing even in our days.

[tabibito]

Verse 3 would seem to impose strictures on just which authorities are under consideration.

[Charles]

Verse 3 would seem to impose strictures on just which authorities are under consideration.

If that is the case I don't see why it is initially stated:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

That gives the impression that there are no exceptions. Or did I miss anything?

[tabibito]

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.

[Charles]

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.

It seems we are moving into discussing two aspects of this, namely what the text actually says and how it is interpreted. I would say in this context reading verse 3 the way you do is closer to a contradiction of verse 1 than restricting the scope. There are no restrictions in verse 1. It clearly says: "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." No restrictions to be seen. Why would it not say "most" or "almost all" if there were restrictions?

Luther killing peasants in the name of God
And let's have a look at how these words have been interpreted and the political consequences they have had:

I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the uprising, for I ordered that they be put to death; all their blood is on my neck. But I refer it all to our Lord God, who commanded me to speak as I did.

That is, actual people were killed based on these writings. If the restrictions were more obvious perhaps these lives could have been saved? Luther also stateted:

So, what we can conclude is, that these words had fatal consequences for the peasants who were unhappy to live in the same age as the reformer Martin Luther. And looking at restrictions, Martin Luther says: "First, I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment." So according to Luther even rulers who oppose the Gospel should be tolerated in the scope of the Romans.

Of course some will say he simply misread the words. I am not too certain about that. I feel it is more obvious to say that these words are confusing and could be interpreted in many ways.

Quotes can be found, among other places, on this page: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...-peasants.html

[Mountain Man]

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.

[tabibito]

1st point: Always take full context into consideration before deciding what the full intent of a sentence might be - whether in scripture, archaeology, or astronomy (or any other field of endeavour.)

There are no restrictions in verse 1. It clearly says: "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

That is what the translation says, and for all I know at this stage, the translation is accurate.
How do we interpret "to the higher powers"? (εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις) - in strictly wooden translation, "to the excelling authorities," for example ... Is it necessarily all authorities?

As to Luther's exposition and application of scripture ... there are times when it isn't questionable.
υποτασσεσθω -

[Charles]

1st point: Always take full context into consideration before deciding what the full intent of a sentence might be - whether in scripture, archaeology, or astronomy (or any other field of endeavour.)

Of course. My point to you was that you should take your interpretation into consideration when you end up seemingly contradicting what was written just a few lines before.

[Charles]

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.

[tabibito]

Of course. My point to you was that you should take your interpretation into consideration when you end up seemingly contradicting what was written just a few lines before.

If I were to accept your assessment, it would be Paul who contradicted himself, not me contradicting Romans 13:1. Nor would I accept that Paul was contradicting himself or had forgotten what he wrote such a short time earlier. Quite simply - "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (KJV) is ambiguous. With a little effort, you also could see the second possible interpretation.

Again, it would take some time and effort to determine whether that ambiguity exists in the Koine Greek.

Verse 3 dis-ambiguates verse 1, and as Mountain Man pointed out - there is no way that Paul would have meant the wrongful exercise of authority should be met with submission, particularly since Paul himself defied the wrongful exercise of authority, as did all the founding apostles.

Would you say Martin Luther was ignorant?

Answered in post# 8.

[Mountain Man]

I already answered your questions, but to reiterate, each passage in the Bible is to be understood within the context of the entire Bible, and again, there are numerous examples throughout scripture of Godly men defying authority when given commands that are contrary to the Word of God and are, in fact, commended for their actions. That gives us the context we need to fully understand the passage in Romans.

That said, I obviously disagree with Martin Luther's interpretation, but so what? He was an imperfect man, and my theology does not rest on his actions.

[Charles]

If I were to accept your assessment, it would be Paul who contradicted himself, not me contradicting Romans 13:1. Nor would I accept that Paul was contradicting himself or had forgotten what he wrote such a short time earlier. Quite simply - "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (KJV) is ambiguous. With a little effort, you also could see the second possible interpretation.

Again, it would take some time and effort to determine whether that ambiguity exists in the Koine Greek.

Verse 3 dis-ambiguates verse 1, and as Mountain Man pointed out - there is no way that Paul would have meant the wrongful exercise of authority should be met with submission, particularly since Paul himself defied the wrongful exercise of authority, as did all the founding apostles.

Answered in post# 8.

Or it would be your interpretation of Paul in verse 3 that contradicted what Paul obviously said in verse 1.

I think my basic question still remains: If we are to allow for exceptions then why does verse 1 not mention a single exception. Not a single one is mentioned.

You can read verse 1 in the light of verse 3, but since 1 comes before 3 one could state that verse 3 should be read in the light of verse 1. Since 1 contains no exceptions at all verse 3 could thus not be seen to allow for them either. So, it is at best confusing and unclear what is meant.

So, again, why would one write "every person" when it does not go for every person? Why does one write: "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." when authorities not instituted by God exist? I think these are very fair questions to ask and I am yet to see a convincing answer.

And I guess the people killed by Luther's ideas would have appreaciated Paul to be a bit clearer on this issue.

[Mountain Man]

I think my basic question still remains: If we are to allow for exceptions then why does verse 1 not mention a single exception. Not a single one is mentioned.

Look up the term "high-context culture". Stop reading the Bible like it's a modern-day newspaper

[Charles]

I already answered your questions, but to reiterate, each passage in the Bible is to be understood within the context of the entire Bible, and again, there are numerous examples throughout scripture of Godly men defying authority when given commands that are contrary to the Word of God and are, in fact, commended for their actions. That gives us the context we need to fully understand the passage in Ronans.

That said, I obviously disagree with Martin Luther's interpretation, but so what? He was an imperfect man, and my theology does not rest on his actions.

You have given no direct answer. Pointing to the context does not help you much. You are claiming exceptions exist but the Bible clearly states "every person". Who is right? The words in black on white paper or an interpretation that says something different from what the words actually say?

Why would one write "every person" when it does not go for every person? Why does one write: "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." when authorities not instituted by God exist? Even if you point to examples of Godly men defying authority then what does it do to help the fact that it says "every person" and "those that exist have been instituted by God."?

I would like an answer to the actual questions and not merely some talk about context and other circumstances.