Romans 13

[Didymus]

I did not say that I didn't wish to discuss it. I simply don't wish to spin my wheels on the same point over and over and over again.

No human governing authorities? Then what is the purpose for the taxes? Verses 6&7.

I like to stay within the text as much as possible. Bringing in other Scriptures can lead to twisting the Scriptures to come up with a desired conclusion, as those who believe in Covenant Creation do.

As we have a commonality in that we both believe in fulfilled prophecy. I, however, do not believe that God has ended His ministrations on earth. I believe that God is very much involved with the affairs of mankind. And one of the ways God carries out His ministrations is through governing authorities. And that is what Romans 13 is about.

The Greek word, "huperecho," means "to be above." The literal translation for "higher powers," according to Vincent is, "authorities that have themselves over." That seems like a ranking system to me. such as the court system in the United States. There are a plethora of lower courts, but only one Supreme Court, who is the "supreme authority or power" in legal matters. There are supreme authorities that govern over others in this world. And that is what Romans 13.1-7 is referring to. If not, then again, why the referrence to paying taxes?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I did not say that I didn't wish to discuss it. I simply don't wish to spin my wheels on the same point over and over and over again.

No human governing authorities? Then what is the purpose for the taxes? Verses 6&7.

I like to stay within the text as much as possible. Bringing in other Scriptures can lead to twisting the Scriptures to come up with a desired conclusion, as those who believe in Covenant Creation do.

As we have a commonality in that we both believe in fulfilled prophecy. I, however, do not believe that God has ended His ministrations on earth. I believe that God is very much involved with the affairs of mankind. And one of the ways God carries out His ministrations is through governing authorities. And that is what Romans 13 is about.

The Greek word, "huperecho," means "to be above." The literal translation for "higher powers," according to Vincent is, "authorities that have themselves over." That seems like a ranking system to me. such as the court system in the United States. There are a plethora of lower courts, but only one Supreme Court, who is the "supreme authority or power" in legal matters. There are supreme authorities that govern over others in this world. And that is what Romans 13.1-7 is referring to. If not, then again, why the referrence to paying taxes?

I like to stay within the text as much as possible. Bringing in other Scriptures can lead to twisting the Scriptures to come up with a desired conclusion, as those who believe in Covenant Creation do.

So we can discuss it within your parameters and eliminate the clarification of Pauls and Christs other statements and teachings.??? I don't think so. That sounds like 2S limited discussion of Revelation.

I see no resolution to the difference between us and I disagree with your perspectives of 'higher powers" as a ranking system though I understand how you can come to that understanding.

That seems like a ranking system to me such as the court system in the United States.

Your again missing the first century context where from your authoritative version; Paul is telling Jews [included in 'every soul'] who would read this that they were to submit to the High Priest authority and command to persecute Christians who had left the ordinances of the mosaic covenant.

And if not the Jews, then the believing Romans were to submit to the Caesars decrees to persecute their brethren.



I furthermore think that since Paul is using the words ever soul he is speaking on an individual level and to believers who would have KNOWLEDGE of the higher powers of God and who would appeal to them as again the scriptures indicate.

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers1849 in heavenly [places] [Higher powers to a follower of the Creator through Christ] might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The point of his referral to paying tribute was in the lew rockwell article and likely the others. And if the 'higher powers' included the rulers of the church, [such as Paul] or direct reference to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then the tribute is ones life to the Spiritual leadership, freedoms, and authority of Heaven.

You [Pharisees] who are Ceasar's, render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, and let those who are God's render their lives, tribute and freedom from Him unto Him. This perspective is consistently supported in Pauls and others letters AND was reflected in the original taxation imposition of [even] the Constitution.

Even in the Jewish temple tax, Jesus took Peter who had spoken out of turn aside and said [the sons of God were free]. Jesus was already teaching the separation from the mosaic covenant conditional/corporal contract and support of it's administration. But, since Peter had already spoken out of turn, they would not offend them and would pay the administrative tax; but it's interesting that the tax did not come from their own present labors or from their treasury. This seems to confirm the principle of inequity, dishonesty and injustice of those individuals who were under the new Prophet, God himself, paying 'tribute' to the high priests and temple administration of the waxing away old system that appealed to their humanist goals.

As Thomas Jefferson stated; To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas [or ministries] he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Pay tribute to whom tribute is due; but not to whom it is not due.

The commonality of knowledge and belief of the fulfilled prophecies are a good foundation, but they were not fulfilled in a vacuum or in a story book. They were fulfilled supernaturally in living History and from a living God who's revealed ordinances and principles established and changed heavens laws among and for men at that time and continue to the present.

Their fulfillment and the supernatural manner of the fulfillment had a impact and effect upon the human govt of that day and is reflected in the preamble and first articles of constitutions and governments among men.

Here is 2 examples of the conflict of the 2 views.

1. The higher authorities of heaven give an individual moral accountability [and freedom] for ones life, contracted associations and actions including a tribute to God of one's work, abilities and life. The authoritarian interpretation of Rom 13, that the individual soul is commanded to be subject to even atheistic, Judaical state for it's interactions and goals in the world. It is humanist, unknowing, and contrary to the higher ordinances and individual liberties and accountability of God and HIS Rights of Love and Goodness.

2. In 1 Tim 2:1-6, Timothy is told to pray for leaders and those in authority, and it is clarified that they should be praying for their coming to the saving knowledge of God, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

The prayer is not for the rulers to make rules allowing them to continue to exist and live in subjection to their rules; but for the rulers to come to the confirmed and sealed belief in Jesus as living Creator himself, and through this and through their understanding, to make rules respecting the freedom of life and the sons from oppression of life in order to live quiet, fruitful, productive, joyous and peaceable lives.

WHY are they to make this prayers?....

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [NOT the government]

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Even the Roman govt feared individualism and free associations of individuals in their empire; not so much that they feared rebellion, but they feared success and autonomy without the reliance on the Govt and the profits and power thereof.

There is much depth and higher principles involved in this discussion which can become heated and people are often offended in their perceptions and beliefs. But it is again noted that these principles of the individuality and moral accountability of men are respected and provided for by the Constitutions; but not often administered to or promoted by the secular govt; and often imposed and compelled and sometimes coerced against. The misinterpretation of Rom 13 may be part of the coercion.

I'll be taking a break from this for awhile to give time for reflection. Perhaps others will chime in. We'll not likely come to an agreement aside from the Spirits intervention on this issue and there would be a plethora of endless discussion in the meantime.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As you stated; 'higher powers' is an acceptable translation, but it does not mean [human] governing authorities.

The word 'exousia' is often [not always] used of spiritual forces, rights, powers, rule. Thats the reason for listing the verses. The word 'higher' is referring to the excellent spiritual authorities and rights of God himself.

If he had not been referring to the Spiritual powers I think he would have omitted the word 'higher'.

I think this is evident by the words "For" there is no authority [power or right] but of God[emanating from God]. This is telling the believing readers "WHY" they should be submitting to the HIGHER authority ordinances and freedoms of God;[now revealed through his Son] for there is NO [ultimate] POWER, and ordinance but of Creator God.

It is not an easy topic and there are some commentators who think Paul left thing intentionally vague to allow varied perspectives based on the level of growth, and understanding in the individual and their allegiance to that point.

Again; here are a few verses for those who wish to study and discuss Rom 13 and including it's context of Rom 12.

Am I missing something? It seems that the context establishes the meaning of "higher powers" as "governing authorities" -

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities (exousia). For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority (exousia) has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers (archon) are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority (exousia)? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword (earthly power of governments) for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience ' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers (archon) are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

I don't see anything in that passage that suggest Paul was talking about "spiritual authorities." Everything is focused on the earthly RULERS to whom folks paid taxes, i.e. governing authorities of the Roman Empire and/or Jewish theocracy.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Am I missing something? It seems that the context establishes the meaning of "higher powers" as "governing authorities" -

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities (exousia). For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority (exousia) has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers (archon) are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority (exousia)? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword (earthly power of governments) for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience ' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers (archon) are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

I don't see anything in that passage that suggest Paul was talking about "spiritual authorities." Everything is focused on the earthly RULERS to whom folks paid taxes, i.e. governing authorities of the Roman Empire and/or Jewish theocracy.

Feel free to check out the three links. And as noted, the laws and constitutions of the states support and respect these separations.

In Rome, to whom this was written; paying the tribute was more than just paying a usage and service fee [indirect tax] of the govt. Paying a tribute was equal to saying "Caesar is Lord". It was a willing subjection of self to Rome's Lordship. And this is the perspective of the 'governing authorities' view of vs 1. Why do you think the early Christians suffered death? Can you imagine Paul telling those en lighted, forgiven by God and indwelt with the Spirit and the knowledge of the Living God to say, Caesar is Lord?

In acts 17, one named Jason suffered loss of his property for saying that he had another King named Jesus.

I think our interpretation of the passage may be skewed as we seek to apply it to 21st century govt mindset; before understanding it's first century contextual meaning. In addition, it is thought that Paul chose his words carefully so as not to give the impression of opposing and rebellion against the national govts of that pre-desolation and victorious church day. That would have been the only way that the letter could have circulated freely.

In addition, in the context of chapter 11 and 12, the 'subjection of every soul' to the higher powers will help dictate the meanings. Govts or associations and agencies formed under Christian principles should be serving, not lording.

Yes, I agree that taking Rom 13:1-7 as a stand alone paragraph can lead one to the pro-authority views. But the most influential pro-government factor is to translate the words 'higher powers" as governing authorities. And in making that translation of words, the rest of the passage is translated in agreement with that perspective. That is the perspective of the text you used. Isn't it possible that those words alone can mislead and influence the context against it's intent?. The living bible was even more direct and blunt to that effect. But in defining the Greek words and with a possible perspective that 'higher powers' referred to God's ordinances, laws and POWERS, then the subjection to govt interpretation and understanding is not so cut and dry.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. No man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

I think the 3 links can present the higher spiritual authority of God himself perspective better than I.

Perhaps we'll break things down at a future time but the word studies of the various usages of the word exousia and the others as well as what other words could have been used is imperative along with a plea and willing subjection to the Holy Spirit as the teacher.

Again, thanks for all for the interaction, even if it is opposed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Feel free to check out the three links. And as noted, the laws and constitutions of the states support and respect these separations.

In Rome, to whom this was written; paying the tribute was more than just paying a usage and service fee [direct tax] of the govt. Paying a tribute was equal to saying "Caesar is Lord". It was a willing subjection of self to Rome's Lordship. And this is the perspective of the 'governing authorities' view of vs 1. Why do you think the early Christians suffered death? Can you imagine Paul telling those en lighted, forgiven by God and indwelt with the Spirit and the knowledge of the Living God to say, Caesar is Lord?

In acts 17, one named Jason suffered loss of his property for saying that he had another King named Jesus.

I think our interpretation of the passage may be skewed as we seek to apply it to 21st century govt mindset; before understanding it's first century contextual meaning. In addition, it is thought that Paul chose his words carefully so as not to give the impression of opposing and rebellion against the national govts of that pre-desolation and victorious church day. That would have been the only way that the letter could have circulated freely.

In addition, in the context of chapter 11 and 12, the 'subjection of every soul' to the higher powers will help dictate the meanings. Govts or associations and agencies formed under Christian principles should be serving, not lording.

Yes, I agree that taking Rom 13:1-7 as a stand alone paragraph can lead one to the pro-authority views. But the most influential pro-government factor is to translate the words 'higher powers" as governing authorities. And in making that translation of words, the rest of the passage is translated in agreement with that perspective. That is the perspective of the text you used. Isn't it possible that those words alone can mislead and influence the context against it's intent?. The living bible was even more direct and blunt to that effect. But in defining the Greek words and with a possible perspective that 'higher powers' referred to God's ordinances, laws and POWERS, then the subjection to govt interpretation and understanding is not so cut and dry.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. No man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

I think the 3 links can present the higher spiritual authority of God himself perspective better than I.

Perhaps we'll break things down at a future time but the word studies of the various usages of the word exousia and the others as well as what other words could have been used is imperative along with a plea and willing subjection to the Holy Spirit as the teacher.

Again, thanks for all for the interaction, even if it is opposed.

I enjoy the interaction, and opposition helps us sharpen our understanding. I'm glad you appreciate it.

As for the three links - I take it you are talking about these three links from this post in the other thread:

Here are some helps although I dont' fully agree with every aspect of every article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p11.1.html
http://www.hisholychurch.info/sermon/romans13.php
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

I'll check them out and get back to you.

Paul explicitly said we should pay both "tribute" and "taxes" to the "authorities." How are we supposed to do that if the authorities are not governmental? I really don't understand the interpretation you are suggesting.

Your argument about paying taxes being equivalent to saying "Caesar is Lord" doesn't sound right. Is there any direct evidence for that position? I mean, is there any record of a Christian refusing to pay taxes for that reason?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

OK - I read this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p11.1.html

I found nothing in it that would support an interpretation contrary to the common interpretation of "governmental authorities." It had lots of words and little clarity and it did not even pretend to offer a coherent interpretation of Romans 13:1-7. It did not address any of the issues that support the standard interpretation of "governmental authorities."

I also scanned this article:

http://www.hisholychurch.info/sermon/romans13.php

Again, I did not see anything that even approached a meaningful Biblical exegesis. The article focuses almost entirely on Romans 13:1 and did not even attempt to interpret the context that spoke of taxes and tributes begin given to the "rulers." Again, it had lots of words and little clarity.

Finally, I scanned the third article:

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

And again, I found the same meaningless mumbling of ideas without any actual exegesis of what the text actually says. It is interesting that the article begins with the question "How are we going to overcome Romans 13?" Nice approach! How are we going to "overcome" the plain teaching of the Bible? Simple - just go blah blah blah long enough till folks fall asleep and forget what the question was.

Bottom line: It is impossible to "overcome" the plain teaching of Romans 13:1-7. It says what it says.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

OK - I read this article:

Bottom line: It is impossible to "overcome" the plain teaching of Romans 13:1-7. It says what it says.

We'll agree to disagree. with no more comment at this time. Other things on the go and no time to do a inductive study breakdown from the context of the previous chapter and the end of chapter 11.

And I believe the context and inductive study as well as the respect of the allowance of various citizenship's within the documents of the governments themselves support it.

It's not that we are to be rebellious against 'GOOD' laws of the system; but we are not to willingly contract and subject ourselves to be lorded over, commanded and subjugated by atheist, humanists, authoritarian or socialist govts for their purposes. Barnabas wrote about continuing to be on guard against worldly contracts [friendships] and to be about dissolving those in which one is enslaved.

Think if you were living in a muslim country. From your perspective, this would apply to you there also. If you were a christian living in Libya or Israel, this would apply to you also. And if you even thought to leave the country, then your not obeying the command to be subject to their government. If your in China, you submit to their authority.

If the concept that Higher powers could even possibly refer to the Living ordinances. laws, principles and statutes of God through his Goodness and Love, and HIS right [Liberty, power] to ENFORCE them, is foreign to your understanding, then you'll not likely be able grasp the concept in the same manner that I do at the present time.

The difficulty is more in the application of it.

Sorry to take so much time over it.

Recall again the ending of Dan 7 where the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of God and of the saints...AFTER the battle and the victory of the Lambs of Peace.

And when we shoot for the stars
What a giant step
Have we got what it takes
To carry the weight of this concept?
Or pass it by
Like a shot in the dark
Miss the mark with a sense of adventure

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

And again, I found the same meaningless mumbling of ideas without any actual exegesis of what the text actually says. It is interesting that the article begins with the question "How are we going to overcome Romans 13?" Nice approach! How are we going to "overcome" the plain teaching of the Bible? Simple - just go blah blah blah long enough till folks fall asleep and forget what the question was.

Bottom line: It is impossible to "overcome" the plain teaching of Romans 13:1-7. It says what it says.

I think he's referring to overcoming those who throw Romans 13 in their face.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We'll agree to disagree. with no more comment at this time. Other things on the go and no time to do a inductive study breakdown from the context of the previous chapter and the end of chapter 11.

And I believe the context and inductive study as well as the respect of the allowance of various citizenship's within the documents of the governments themselves support it.

It's not that we are to be rebellious against 'GOOD' laws of the system; but we are not to willingly contract and subject ourselves to be lorded over, commanded and subjugated by atheist, humanists, authoritarian or socialist govts for their purposes. Barnabas wrote about continuing to be on guard against worldly contracts [friendships] and to be about dissolving those in which one is enslaved.

Think if you were living in a muslim country. From your perspective, this would apply to you there also. If you were a christian living in Libya or Israel, this would apply to you also. And if you even thought to leave the country, then your not obeying the command to be subject to their government. If your in China, you submit to their authority.

If the concept that Higher powers could even possibly refer to the Living ordinances. laws, principles and statutes of God through his Goodness and Love, and HIS right [Liberty, power] to ENFORCE them, is foreign to your understanding, then you'll not likely be able grasp the concept in the same manner that I do at the present time.

The difficulty is more in the application of it.

Sorry to take so much time over it.

Recall again the ending of Dan 7 where the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of God and of the saints...AFTER the battle and the victory of the Lambs of Peace.

And when we shoot for the stars
What a giant step
Have we got what it takes
To carry the weight of this concept?
Or pass it by
Like a shot in the dark
Miss the mark with a sense of adventure

I'm sorry you don't want to discuss this more. I'm quite confused by your position. It seems entirely unfounded. Have you ever seen any attempt to interpret the entire passage of Rom 13:1-7 in a coherent fashion? Not one of the three links you posted presented anything like a coherent interpretation of the entire passage. So why do you hold to something without any support at all? That seems very strange to me. If you don't like what it says, it would be better to just reject it as a corruption of Scripture by some scribe sold out to the Roman State than to try to force a meaning that is not only absent from the text, but contrary to it!

I hope you don't feel I'm being to "strident" on this point - I'm just telling you how I see it.

Great chatting.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Your argument about paying taxes being equivalent to saying "Caesar is Lord" doesn't sound right. Is there any direct evidence for that position? I mean, is there any record of a Christian refusing to pay taxes for that reason?
Richard

I wanted to respond to this as it is a good question; but again little time now and I'm formulating a response. This topic can be researched by those interested in the meantime.

There were alters and busts throughout Rome and in their marketplaces where one passing through was to hail Caesar or offer incense or tribute. This was thought by some commentators to be the 'mark of the beast' of Revelation.

The denerai of Rome had the inscription "son of God" on it and the jews understood that paying the tribute was to admit slavery and lordship to Rome and Ceasar.

This is the drama and political/spiritual interaction of the profession of those who wished to crucify Christ by saying 'we have no king but Ceasar" and "whoever is a friend of this man is no friend of Ceasar".

Later in the book of James, the apostle played on the importance of this interaction, saying; Ye adulterers and idolaters; know you not that friendship with the world is enmity with God and Whoever would wish to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God."

Jesus taught that no man can say "Jesus is lord" except by the Holy Spirit.
It is no wonder he stated this. It was due to the opposition, oppression and criticism that saying Ceasar [or the high Priests] is [are]not Lord would bring including having Rom 13 thrown back at them.

From Wikipedia;
The taking of the census by Quirinus, the Roman procurator, for the purpose of taxation was regarded as a sign of Roman enslavement; and the Zealots’ call for stubborn resistance to the oppressor was responded to enthusiastically.

I think with your abilities of research into history through the internet, you or other interested parties might be able to search these things out for themselves; especially the implications of paying the 'tribute' tax to Ceasar.

Preterist archive is a good source of historical information.

We [including yourself] ascribe to the general perspectives of full preterism. In that perspective, we would find and agree that Dan 7 including the last few verses would be fulfilled in the first century and the Kingdom of God and the dominion and authority thereof given to the saints.... forever and ever....

How was this fulfilled if the saints were to be 'subject to Rome and Ceasar as Lord?

You and others can look up the verses themselves. Joe made a point in another thread about the roman and Jewish alliance against the Christians, and yet the Saints 'won' the victory of the kingdom of God. How and what were the decisions and mechanisms of the saints obtaining the kingdom of God and of Heaven ?

How was [is] this fulfilled in the first century and beyond if Rom 13 demands that we be "subject to "governing authorities" instead of subject to the intent, liberty and purposes of Love, Goodness & mercy as the "higher powers" of the Creator.

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power 1849 over the nations:

In this post as well as others, there are several points to consider, ponder, answer and to reflect upon as well as the other scriptures to study which indicate that "higher powers" or even "powers" can refer to spiritual powers.

Additionally, there is the factor of Paul's first century knowledge that the Creator would soon be coming as Deliverer [roman 11:26 and Is 59] through the Roman armies. But that many would first suffer under Nero while the beast would make war with the saints and prevail against them for 3 1/2 yrs.

It is not that I don't' wish to continue the discussion; but there are other activities to attend to and these posts take up much time and energy.

And as in the other posts this has the making of endless argument and debate. And as noted; no man can say and maintain "Jesus is lord" but by the holy Spirit.

Might we agree to allow the "Living God" and his Spirit to direct either sides of the opinion and its' understanding.

If I dont' respond promptly, I haven't deserted the thread in anger or conceded to agreement; just that I think there is room for more contemplation and self study from others on these responses as well as other things of life. I'll intend to continue to monitor the discussion and reply later but perhaps not as promptly.

It is indeed great to be chatting, and I appreciate the various discussions that are held, but it's also written that with many words and of argument are the hearers ruined.

Cheers.