Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)

[Abigail]

The passage clearly says that government is supposed to terrorize those who are doing evil in the present, not terrorize the Jews from the distant past.

Again, the reason these Jews were brought in was because Jeremiah 29 held some parallels to Romans 13. What parallels? God's people being told to pray and seek good for the leaders/places they lived in and to behave well towards those leaders.

Were the Babylonians more righteous than the Jews and therefore punished the Jews because they took offense at their sinful behaviour. No, it was God who took offense at the sinful behaviour and used the Babylonians to punish the Jews. In Babylonian minds they attacked the Jews for other reasons.

Why was Israel under Roman occupation at the time of Jesus? Surely because God allowed them for His purposes. Does this mean Caesar and Romans were better than the Jews? No, God was dealing with the Jews and their leaders were corrupt and the vulnerable being oppressed. That Romans were also corrupt and oppressed vulnerable people is not the issue. God was dealing with Israel.

So basically the reason I looked to "Jews from the distant past" was to try understand why people like Paul should say we should obey secular leaders who are apparently "not a terror to good works but to evil" when clearly these guys were/are often full of corruption and sinfulness themselves. Faithful and repentant Jews were still in exile in Babylon because they were judged as a nation and exile didn't physically stop the moment they repented. As Christians we are not physically in the New Jerusalem or with Jesus yet so in a sense this is again similar to those faithful Jews in Babylon who had to wait for God to bring them back. Secular leaders are therefore not a terror to good behaviour in that the only time they are justified in punishing us is when we deserve it (either individually or nationally) and our consciences will agree with it.

So basically the Jews in Babylon were waiting to go back to Jerusalem. Christians are waiting to go to the New Jerusalem. The Jews were exiled by God fom Jerusalem and this is how they came to be in Babylon. We were physically exiled from God in Adam and that is why we as Christians can find ourselves in a world ruled by secular leaders who do not always act on God's authority. These leaders are not a terror to us because as long as we are in Christ we are no longer under condemnation and nothing should terror us.

[Joel]

I don't see that in the text. You seem to be bringing in a premise from the outside.

I'm talking about TODAY. Our authorities are no less obvious today than they were then. You're attempting to redefine authority in order to justify disobedience. What you're doing to scripture in an attempt to justify your position is, bluntly, no better than, e.g., what the Jehovah's Witnesses do. You need to re-think your approach to scripture.

You are taking a premise about majoritarianism and particular entities today, and reading that back into the text, rather than taking what the text says and using that to evaluate majoritarianism and existing entities today.

It is certainly not obvious to me that majority vote picking an official can cause God to grant that person governing authority. Wouldn't that imply that God submits to (or at least rubber-stamps) majority will, whatever that is?

Also, as I said earlier, I'm not so much finding a justification for civil disobedience, but finding information about what is (im)moral for a government to do (and thus what is (im)moral to vote for).

[Joel]

Another way one could look at these passages is by taking a cue from the OT. When God brought His people into the promised land they were to be faithful to Him and this would ensure their continued blessing and prosperity there. If they were to become unfaithful, arrogant and self-assured there, then He would punish them and this would be in the form of bringing kings of Assyria and Babylon with their armies against them.
So in this way these non promised-land rulers were God ordained servants who provided a terror to evil doers (v.4). Not because these rulers were implementing just and right laws, they many times weren't, but because their purpose was as an implement of punishment by God for the Jews bad behaviour. In Babylon the Jews just had to get on with it and obey the rulers where they could rendering taxes etc and taking punishment when they couldn't eg Daniel in the lions den. To rise up in battle against their vanquishers while in Babylon would have gone against God's ultimate authority since they were there for punishment. They had to wait for God to set them free and bring them rejoicing back to Jerusalem when their time of punishment was ended.

When Paul wrote the Jews were very much bridling against Roman occupation and yet arguably God had brought these occupiers in because of unfaithfulness and so they should take their punishment and get on with it.

But wasn't Paul writing to gentile Christians in Rome? not to Jews in occupied Israel.

[Joel]

When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in Matthew 22:15-22 and they asked Him about taxes he referred them to the head on the coin asking whose head it was and then said they should render to Caesar what was his and to God what was His. The implication was surely that taxes were due Caesar (his head his property) and worship was due God. Emperor worship went on in those times.

I was considering starting a different thread on that passage. But I guess here is fine.

I tend to think that Jesus didn't actually answer the question. Rather what Jesus did was embarrass the questioners, similar to the case of the woman trapped in adultery, and they tried to trap Jesus with their question, and Jesus didn't answer the question, but instead made them aware of their own hypocrisy.

Recall that they were trying to trap Jesus. By asking (not whether paying the tribute to Rome is required but) whether paying it is even permissible under OT Law. The common understanding at the time (as I understand) was that the answer was no. (E.g. "'The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,' declares the LORD of hosts.") If Jesus answered "yes," they could both argue that Jesus was speaking contrary to the Law, and arouse the anger of the Jews, among whom was popular support for revolt. But on the other hand, if Jesus were to answer that it's impermissible to pay the tribute, then they could hand Jesus over to the Roman soldiers.

So Jesus asks them to produce a denarius, and they have one. What are "image" and "inscription" associated with, for a Jew? This is Jesus' gotcha: The questioners are carrying around a graven image of the "divine" Caesar, with an inscription declaring him to be divine. Instead, they are supposed to be carrying around an inscription of the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one". The implication was for them to then consider whether they themselves (likely supporters of tax revolt) were in fact already rendering unto Caesar more than his due, and rendering to God less than His due. (Jesus' final statement was not an answer to the question, but the standard formula of the law of Justice (render to each what is due).)

Also remember that they were trying to trap Jesus. If he answered yes or no, then they would respond with a "Gotcha." If Jesus' answer amounted to "Yes, not only is paying the tribute permissible, it is required.", then they would have responded with a "Gotcha." But they didn't. They were amazed and went away. Jesus managed to point out to tax resisters that they were rendering too much to Caesar, without saying anything that would run Jesus into trouble with the Roman state. Now that's amazing.

If anything they may have interpreted Jesus as leaning towards the side of not paying the tribute. Evidence of this is that later when bringing charges against Jesus, they accused him of "forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar". Also we see in Matthew 17, Jesus telling Peter that they were exempt from paying a tax, but they paid it, via a miracle, and drachma not a blasphemous denarius, only in order not to offend.

[Abigail]

I was considering starting a different thread on that passage. But I guess here is fine.

I tend to think that Jesus didn't actually answer the question. Rather what Jesus did was embarrass the questioners, similar to the case of the woman trapped in adultery, and they tried to trap Jesus with their question, and Jesus didn't answer the question, but instead made them aware of their own hypocrisy.

Recall that they were trying to trap Jesus. By asking (not whether paying the tribute to Rome is required but) whether paying it is even permissible under OT Law. The common understanding at the time (as I understand) was that the answer was no. (E.g. "'The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,' declares the LORD of hosts.") If Jesus answered "yes," they could both argue that Jesus was speaking contrary to the Law, and arouse the anger of the Jews, among whom was popular support for revolt. But on the other hand, if Jesus were to answer that it's impermissible to pay the tribute, then they could hand Jesus over to the Roman soldiers.

So Jesus asks them to produce a denarius, and they have one. What are "image" and "inscription" associated with, for a Jew? This is Jesus' gotcha: The questioners are carrying around a graven image of the "divine" Caesar, with an inscription declaring him to be divine. Instead, they are supposed to be carrying around an inscription of the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one". The implication was for them to then consider whether they themselves (likely supporters of tax revolt) were in fact already rendering unto Caesar more than his due, and rendering to God less than His due. (Jesus' final statement was not an answer to the question, but the standard formula of the law of Justice (render to each what is due).)

Also remember that they were trying to trap Jesus. If he answered yes or no, then they would respond with a "Gotcha." If Jesus' answer amounted to "Yes, not only is paying the tribute permissible, it is required.", then they would have responded with a "Gotcha." But they didn't. They were amazed and went away. Jesus managed to point out to tax resisters that they were rendering too much to Caesar, without saying anything that would run Jesus into trouble with the Roman state. Now that's amazing.

If anything they may have interpreted Jesus as leaning towards the side of not paying the tribute. Evidence of this is that later when bringing charges against Jesus, they accused him of "forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar". Also we see in Matthew 17, Jesus telling Peter that they were exempt from paying a tax, but they paid it, via a miracle, and drachma not a blasphemous denarius, only in order not to offend.

The Matthew 22 passage differs from the the Matthew 17 one in that 22 is about general taxes and 17 temple tax (for running of temple and robes etc).

Rome was the occupying authority in Israel and if we take what Jesus says in Matthew 17:24-27 that the kings of the earth take tribute from strangers rather than sons then they would pay general taxes to Caesar and I think this is what is being discussed in Matt 22 - though Jesus does raise the point of Caesar's attributing divinity to himself, implying clearly that this is not Caesar.s due. Worship is for God alone.

In Matt 17 regarding the temple tax I think Jesus was making the point that He is the son of God so He would be in His right not to pay (my Father's house Luke 2:49) but that He will pay anyway because He doesn't want to be a stumbling block for the rest. William Barclay in his commentary on Matthew tends to think there was no real fish with a coin in its mouth but that Jesus was telling Peter to earn their tax from fishing. However I think the dialogue in verses 25-26 does demand a miracle and that a fish with a coin did come up or at the very least Peter caught something so large it was worth the "stater" This would demonstrate that Jesus was the special son and that Peter as a son of Abraham was only giving back to God what was God had blessed the work of his hands with so not quite the same category as Caesar.s tax

[Abigail]

But wasn't Paul writing to gentile Christians in Rome? not to Jews in occupied Israel.

Though that doesn't mean they didn't take cues off the Jews since there is direct connection in Jew/Christian views on things. Paul was a Jew so would notice problems and there was the problem of Judaisers .

[One Bad Pig]

You are taking a premise about majoritarianism and particular entities today, and reading that back into the text, rather than taking what the text says and using that to evaluate majoritarianism and existing entities today.

It is certainly not obvious to me that majority vote picking an official can cause God to grant that person governing authority. Wouldn't that imply that God submits to (or at least rubber-stamps) majority will, whatever that is?

I think you're way over-thinking this. Paul, Peter, et. al. are saying that, whoever the authority is, they should be obeyed unless doing so would mean going against your faith.

Also, as I said earlier, I'm not so much finding a justification for civil disobedience, but finding information about what is (im)moral for a government to do (and thus what is (im)moral to vote for).

Then the text at hand isn't going to help you much, because that's not the message Paul is trying to convey.

There are no perfect candidates. Vote for the one who causes you the least heartburn.

[Joel]

I think you're way over-thinking this. Paul, Peter, et. al. are saying that, whoever the authority is, they should be obeyed unless doing so would mean going against your faith.

Other than the "unless" part (which isn't in this passage, but I understand you to be interpreting it in light of other Scripture), this seems like a tautology. By definition you must obey authority, right? But if I don't know who is or is not an authority, then I can't begin to follow the instruction. Is Paul assuming it would be obvious or he expected that people would reason philosophically to the correct answer? How so, if Paul was writing to people who had a disagreement on this very point, arguing that there is no king but Jesus? If Paul is just saying "obey authority," surely they would have responded, "Of course. And there is no authority but King Jesus."

As for the "unless" part, Paul seems to make no room for such a thing. How can a ruler possibly order you to go against the faith if "rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good." ?

[Joel]

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.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.")

[Faber]

Several of the men in my Sunday School class are quick to criticize President Obama or some of the congressmen. I am quick to correct them on this. Any issues I have with the current president will wait until the next president takes office. 1 Peter 2:17, "Fear God. Honour the King." I can give several other verses.

Maybe I can best give the example of David and his high regard for Saul as God's anointed, despite Saul's wickedness and attempts to kill David. Or Daniel's respect for ungodly kings of Babylon and Persia.

The disciples stated, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) But that wasn't until after the discussed the issue with the Sanhedrin, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge." (Acts 4:19)

Civil disobedience can be justified only as a last resort, after alternate outcomes fail to be agreed on. And we must be willing to pay the price. Remember how Daniel and his friends offered an alternative that would be agreeable to the king.

I have seen too many cases where Christians have been defiant against local governments who restrict their religious freedoms, but not requiring them to violate the Scriptures. Like when Christians want to hold a church service in a residential area, where there is no off-street parking, when it would become a nuisance to the neighborhood. It was a violation of the local zoning ordinance.

We don't have any religious rights, other than the right to be called children of God (John 1:12). That includes the right to violate ordinances of men unless there is a clear requirement to violate Scripture.

Give me nine more months, and I'll feel free to talk about Obama. Until then, he is the man God chose to be president over this country. Like it or not.

By the way, I think Barack Obama was the biggest lying leftist scumbag to have ever disgraced the office of the President of the United States!

There, I've said it.

(Now I have to wait another four years.)

[One Bad Pig]

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.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.")

People are very, very good at reading into scripture what they want to see there.

[Joel]

People are very, very good at reading into scripture what they want to see there.

So how do we best judge the correct interpretation here?

The usual statist interpretation especially seems like it's reading in what the reader wants to see.
They interpret verses 1 and 2 literally.
But they read into it an additional premise of their own, something like "Might implies authority."
Then they have to interpret verses 3-6 figuratively.
They read into verse 7 their own premises about what is owed to whom.
And then they stop reading there.

[One Bad Pig]

So how do we best judge the correct interpretation here?

The usual statist interpretation especially seems like it's reading in what the reader wants to see.
They interpret verses 1 and 2 literally.
But they read into it an additional premise of their own, something like "Might implies authority."
Then they have to interpret verses 3-6 figuratively.
They read into verse 7 their own premises about what is owed to whom.
And then they stop reading there.

Did you enjoy immolating that strawman?

[tabibito]

There is always the slightly sticky point that we, living in democracies*, technically ARE the governing authorities (provided that enough people agree with us).

[Joel]

Did you enjoy immolating that strawman?

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.