The main point of agreement between Paul and his intended audience was their shared belief that the Roman government had just brutally, publicly executed the only sinless person in the world.
Him telling them to obey the Roman government because they only hurt bad people is ridiculous. Either he's telling them not to obey the Romans, by encoding it with shared knowledge; or he's not talking about the Roman government.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hey Matt,
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Someone in another forum has asserted that my article exhibits two logical fallacies; "False Dilemma" and "Begging the Question." I think you may be following suit, at least with the "False Dichotomy."🤣 Having said that, and while I am still mulling over the accusation, my preliminary reaction is that neither of us bear much guilt on that count... Perhaps we've simply emphasized what in our minds are the two most probable interpretations without bothering to explicitly acknowledge there may be other options.
You and I agree on one of the possibilities; to wit, that Paul's not talking about the state. And I'm willing to concede that there are probably an infinite range of other possible interpretations rather than the one I prefer.
On my part, I've become persuaded that any positive talk about governance in the New Testament is aimed at God's ideal form of governance, which is local—at the level of cities—and is voluntary when it comes to participation. This governance structure is best embodied by the ecclesia. This is the governance I write about extensively in my Kingdom Series of articles.
I could not agree more.
Blessings, Friend! And Happy New Year to you and yours.
😄😇😉
Either he's referring to the Roman state or he isn't. I don't see a third option.
Thanks for that additional word, as it clarifies my thinking in the larger context of an ongoing, raging debate that I seem to be in with "statists" or at least "partial statists." Let me explain:
The "third option" I see is—as your comment has brought clearly into focus for me—actually an infinitely nuanced take on "how the Roman state is viewed" in this passage. In the minds of statists, including many of my peers, I think it has become a matter of degree as to the circumstances and the amount of civil disobedience allowed by the passage. Most of them still believe the state is at some level legitimate, while I do not. I see the state as raw power.
In my own mind, I am at the far extreme; even if I were to hypothetically allow that Romans 13 might possibly be referring to the Roman state, I don't see it as morally demanding any "obedience" at all; rather, as a warning to be prepared to suffer the consequences of going against the grain.
Satan tempting Jesus with political power, pretty clearly presents wielding involuntary power over your fellow man as something both alluring and to be avoided.
This is the crux though, isn't it. Not even the most hardened statist believes this passage justified the SS guards at Auschwitz obeying Hitler and murdering Jews. So we all agree it's not a blanket endorsement of the state.
The abortion industry kills far more people than the gas chamber ever did; and here in Australia I'm systematically robbed to subsidise it. Others may not consider it murder, but that's not the point. The point is that I consider it murder; which means Romans 13 no more obliges me to obey the Australian government than it obliged the SS guards to obey Hitler.
So, Brother,
As far as I can tell, you and I are in strong agreement about these matters. And your mention of the temptation causes me to wonder, comment, and ask you a question:
I have long been persuaded that satan still "runs the show" when it comes to ALL nation-states in the world. My general sense is that Christian statists, and especially those with a theonomic perspective and those who identify as "Christian Nationalists" may believe that hegemony ended at the cross, at least opening the possibility for nation-states to become "Christianized."
My reading of Scripture and my personal observations of all of history and current events lead me to discount that possibility.
And so, here's my question for you:
Do you have any Biblical insights or can you point me to any resources that offer Scriptural and logical support for the notion that satan is still running the show when it comes to all the nation-states and "civil governments" of the world?
TIA for anything relevant.🙏😁
All that springs to mind is the old chestnut, Ephesians 6:12
I don't know if it's as cut and dried as you suggest. I believe good, well meaning people can be elected to high office.
*points tentatively at Javier Milei.
People who intend to use the state to serve their fellow man, and/or people who intend to use the state to shrink the state. If the bible straight out claimed that Satan runs every government, those good people might not run and then we'd be in real trouble.
Thanks for the verse from Ephesians...🙏
I have no doubt that you are right. I also have no doubt that any good, well-meaning person seeking state office is seriously misguided, and ought to be applying their good, well-meaning skills in an honest occupation in a benign organization (like the ecclesia or like a private, for-profit company), that does not exist by committing crimes against humanity.
And what the state considers "high office" is in my thinking the very embodiment of anti-Christ. These "high officers" are under the delusion that they have some kind of "right" to rule over me and my fellow-man, a right that can only belong to our Creator.