Just a general comment: Anyone who wishes to comment on the application of Romans 13 to current affairs owes it to his readers to make a close study of Rex Lex by Rutherford, especially the section of his book which deals with resistance to tyrants.
This would not be an easy text to preach. I wonder if you are planning on a follow up sermon to talk about how a Christian should respond to an evil leader. We had Hitler killing the Jews. Bonhoeffer dared to try to work against that evil, which ended in his death. Do we resist simply by voting? We don't have a dictator now, but yet we know that Candidate Trump wants to be a dictator.. We are in hard times and we have seen Christians engaging in violence in the name of Christianity. Any thoughts on that? Not easy to guide a congregation these days.
No it is not easy to lead a congregation these days. I decided to focus on the passage and its focus on submission despite the context of being under the Roman emperors of the time. Christianity is a religion of submission, not rebellion. There are a few exceptions but the rule of being subject to authority needs to be the emphasis, especially since the passage itself does not give exceptions.
Paul's instruction are of a general nature in Romans 13 and he assumes in this passage the benevolence of the state. It's pretty much impossible to believe that Paul would say about the later Nero that "he is God's servant for your good" and "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" or that under his rule those who "do what is good will receive his approval." In reality, Nero WAS a terror to good conduct and he rewarded evil conduct. To resist a tyrant is not antithetical to Christian morals and ethics but is in fact required.
Romans was written during the early Nero yes but the memory of Caligula would have been strong in the memory. It is significant that Paul does not give any exceptions to Christians under a totalitarian system. I would disagree with you.
So Nero was a terror to evil conduct and rewarded good conduct? Of course not. Paul is speaking in a general, idealistic way about what government should be like. When government gets out of its lane, people are under no obligation to submit. Many Reformed people understand that Christians are not under obligation to obey church leaders when they go beyond Scripture and the adopted church order. For example, if church leaders commanded believers to gather not only on the Lord's Day but also on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, no believer would be required to obey. Every sober Christian knows that when consistories or pastors go beyond their authority, nobody is required to obey. The same is true in marriage. When husbands are abusively bossy toward their wives, commanding them to do many things in which they have no authority to command, wives are not obligated to obey. The analogy of these other spheres to our political lives is obvious.
Romans was written in AD 57. Nero was reigning at that time. If you want to take an idealistic interpretation then the burden is on you to demonstrate why you believe a straightforward, repetitive, non-symbolic text should be interpreted in another way.
Americans and Canadians should remember that government is NOT the highest legal authority in the land. The government itself is limited by the constitutional documents of our countries. When governments transgress these limits, they are acting beyond their mandate and should be kindly ignored. Tyrants arise because the people let them.
Just a general comment: Anyone who wishes to comment on the application of Romans 13 to current affairs owes it to his readers to make a close study of Rex Lex by Rutherford, especially the section of his book which deals with resistance to tyrants.
This would not be an easy text to preach. I wonder if you are planning on a follow up sermon to talk about how a Christian should respond to an evil leader. We had Hitler killing the Jews. Bonhoeffer dared to try to work against that evil, which ended in his death. Do we resist simply by voting? We don't have a dictator now, but yet we know that Candidate Trump wants to be a dictator.. We are in hard times and we have seen Christians engaging in violence in the name of Christianity. Any thoughts on that? Not easy to guide a congregation these days.
No it is not easy to lead a congregation these days. I decided to focus on the passage and its focus on submission despite the context of being under the Roman emperors of the time. Christianity is a religion of submission, not rebellion. There are a few exceptions but the rule of being subject to authority needs to be the emphasis, especially since the passage itself does not give exceptions.
Hi there! My thought on this is that our Christian duty to obey extends only as far as the government's right to command. Thank you.
Paul's instruction are of a general nature in Romans 13 and he assumes in this passage the benevolence of the state. It's pretty much impossible to believe that Paul would say about the later Nero that "he is God's servant for your good" and "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer" or that under his rule those who "do what is good will receive his approval." In reality, Nero WAS a terror to good conduct and he rewarded evil conduct. To resist a tyrant is not antithetical to Christian morals and ethics but is in fact required.
Romans was written during the early Nero yes but the memory of Caligula would have been strong in the memory. It is significant that Paul does not give any exceptions to Christians under a totalitarian system. I would disagree with you.
So Nero was a terror to evil conduct and rewarded good conduct? Of course not. Paul is speaking in a general, idealistic way about what government should be like. When government gets out of its lane, people are under no obligation to submit. Many Reformed people understand that Christians are not under obligation to obey church leaders when they go beyond Scripture and the adopted church order. For example, if church leaders commanded believers to gather not only on the Lord's Day but also on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, no believer would be required to obey. Every sober Christian knows that when consistories or pastors go beyond their authority, nobody is required to obey. The same is true in marriage. When husbands are abusively bossy toward their wives, commanding them to do many things in which they have no authority to command, wives are not obligated to obey. The analogy of these other spheres to our political lives is obvious.
Romans was written in AD 57. Nero was reigning at that time. If you want to take an idealistic interpretation then the burden is on you to demonstrate why you believe a straightforward, repetitive, non-symbolic text should be interpreted in another way.
Americans and Canadians should remember that government is NOT the highest legal authority in the land. The government itself is limited by the constitutional documents of our countries. When governments transgress these limits, they are acting beyond their mandate and should be kindly ignored. Tyrants arise because the people let them.
Just curious what violence committed by Christians you have in mind?