I think this is good, and I'll add more to the point. Just prior to chapter 13, Romans 12 ends with this:
Originally Posted by Romans 12
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
But then chapter 13 picks right up on that point with this:
Originally Posted by Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
We see God delegating authority throughout scripture. In John 17, Jesus prays to the Father and describes authority delegated to Him. Within the Trinity, there is a delegation.
My previous comments in the thread do affirm the right for the governing civil authorities to enforce the laws and bring God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
The question then is in my opinion is this, is it right for a Christian to then be apart of that institution given Jesus' commands?
When civil servants are sworn in, they receive a badge to indicate that they are acting as a representative of the government. They are entrusted to act on behalf of the government. They don't have permission to carry their weapon until they have been sworn in and officially delegated as this representative of the government. So, this comes back to the section of Romans 13 that Mark quoted. Why is Government put in place by God as Romans 13:1 says? What is its function? This chapter says it is to condone what is good and punish what is bad.
The way I see it, soldiers of an army are delegated extensions of the government, and they have the God-Given authority to go to war.
One thing I do not see in Romans 13 is the authority of a government to go to war, remember we need to understand this text within it's context. Paul had been saying to the persecuted Church in Rome, that they were not to go against the government, to go against Nero, but rather to be subject to the governing authorities. Why? Because the, "rulers are not a cause of terror for good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want to be afraid of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from it."
If anything, for the Christian this text further affirms them to live peaceably not only with each other and their enemies, but also with the civil governing authorities.
Remember, I'm not some crazy absolute peace loving person either who just ignores passages in the OT where whole people are wiped out at God's command. I understand that God has decreed periods where it was necessary for his people to commit violence. The question is.. with the coming of the Kingdom of God, and Jesus example and teachings, is it right for the CHRISTIAN to participate in violence at any level?
Doulos Iesou, I understand your inner-struggle with this. I have found myself becoming more averse to violence as I continue my walk with the Lord. Except in self defense or the defense of others, I have come to stand opposed to violence, and even then I would only do what is necessary to subdue the assailant. [side note - This was a very well laid out and tempered thread that you constructed. The OP was terrific, though I disagree. I very much appreciate your work here.
I appreciate your kind words here and I receive the encouragement brother.. the struggle I have though, is that if we have this opinion of violence. What then truly separates us from the average secularist? There are many people who don't know the Lord and hate violence and would not respond unless in retaliation to an attack.
Though, I can think of a few scenarios that would greatly challenge what I have said so far, such as if I saw the two men planting the bombs in Boston this week and there was only enough time for me to stop them. Would I be willing to use physical force to attempt to subdue these men?
This brings a new thought to mind, and it perhaps is the key to this topic.. If the whole law is summed up in love, and love does not wrong to their neighbor. It would indeed be wrong of me not to intervene, perhaps even then Jesus' command for peace would then be a shroud to cover my irresponsibility and fear. I think a man subduing an assailant can perhaps even model our savior, who overcame and defeated our enemy when we could not.
Perhaps it would be best to sum it up this way, that the use of force for a Christian may perhaps be justified when it for the preservation of life and peace and out of love for those around.
I'm still quite skeptical about a Christian taking part in a full scale war, but I think what I said above can indeed be justified by the principles in Jesus teaching.
