Criticizing and Opposing Political Leaders.

[Tenchi]

Are political leaders above direct and public reproach? Is this what the Bible teaches and demonstrates? Not at all. From the following passage, primarily, some mistaken Christians draw the conclusion that one must never harshly criticize political leaders, calling their sin what it is, but this is not what is in evidence in the record of the Bible, nor is it actually what the passage indicates.

Romans 13:1-7
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

In the time of Peter and Paul, the Pharisees held not only religious offices and power but also a measure of political and civil authority, too. To see this, one has only to consider the behaviour of Caiaphas the High Priest who took Jesus into custody, interrogated him before the Sanhedrin, then haled Jesus to Pilate and had him - against Pilate's better judgment - sentenced to crucifixion.

About these religious/political leaders Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23.

Peter, too, defied the religious and political authority of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:18-19 and Acts 5:17-40 and the authority of Herod in Acts 12:1-17, escaping imprisonment (for the second time) by Herod. Peter was very blunt about his defiance of the religious and political leaders of his time, saying to them at one point:

Acts 5:29-30
29 ..."We must obey God rather than men.
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.

What did Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, declare directly to the high priest and Sanhedrin gathered to interrogate him?

Acts 7:51-53
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

The apostle Paul also confronted the local Jewish authorities who had beaten and imprisoned he and Silas and then tried to release them quietly and send them away. Instead of honor and deference, Paul declared defiantly,

Acts 16:37
37..."They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out."

Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall" when, during interrogation by a Roman commander, Ananias wrongly commanded that Paul be hit in the face (Acts 23:1-11). Paul acknowledged that he'd have curbed his tongue had he known the religious office Ananias occupied. This acknowledgement didn't prevent Paul, however, from craftily setting the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another, causing such an uproar between them that the Roman authorities had to take him into protective custody. It's hard to see how Paul "honored" the religious/political leaders in doing this even though he'd apologized for saying about Ananias what he actually thought of him.

In light of these things, I don't see good biblical ground for the forbidding of any and all criticism of either religious or political leaders. It was this very sort of silent "deference" (aka "honor") that most of the Church in Germany showed to Hitler that helped the Jewish Holocaust to occur. I, for one, will have no part in such "honor" and I don't believe that a moral, God-honoring Christian can claim to be so and refuse to call evil men - whatever their station - what they are.

2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Since the preaching of the Gospel directly opposed the established religious and political authority of the Jewish leaders of the time of the Early Church, what did Paul mean here? It seems obvious to me that he is not forbidding overt opposition to, and criticism of, such authority (in which he himself participated and for which he was abused and imprisoned). He is, I believe, speaking very generally here about Christians fomenting violent political rebellion and in so doing confirming the growing rumors of Paul's day about Christianity being a dangerous religious sect aimed primarily at overthrowing the social and political order.

3 For 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;

It is, of course, patently obvious that this is a very general statement, a statement, for the most part, in principle only rather than in fact. Many have been the incredibly wicked rulers of nations throughout human history who have been themselves a terrible cause for fear among the righteous, perpetrating great evil upon all those over whom they gained power. Think: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

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 for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Here, Paul described the "minister of God for good," who differs widely from the many despotic mass-murderers populating human history and their agents of oppression and death. It is, I think, a very foolish Christian who takes what Paul wrote here to mean all rulers that God has set over nations are "ministers of good" and so are worthy of respect and deference. See above.

5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

The word "therefore" signals a conclusion from foregoing premises. In this case, the "therefore" is connected to rulers who are "not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil," who are "ministers of God to you for good," not any and every ruler, evil or not, who obtains power over, or within, a nation.

6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers 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.

Yes, even evil kings and rulers serve God's ends, as they did in the OT. And so, in view of this fact, where obeying the laws of the land serve a clearly moral and/or practical good, as in the case of paying taxes, even though the ruler of that land is evil, the Christian ought to "render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due...," etc.. None of this, though, forbids offering criticism of, and opposition to, evil rulers.

 

[Vaccine]

Jesus didn't mince words when he called out those political leaders. I'd like to see more of that in our churches and politics.

Truth is an absolute defense for defamation.

 

[Free]

Are political leaders above direct and public reproach? Is this what the Bible teaches and demonstrates? Not at all. From the following passage, primarily, some mistaken Christians draw the conclusion that one must never harshly criticize political leaders, calling their sin what it is, but this is not what is in evidence in the record of the Bible, nor is it actually what the passage indicates.

Romans 13:1-7
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

In the time of Peter and Paul, the Pharisees held not only religious offices and power but also a measure of political and civil authority, too. To see this, one has only to consider the behaviour of Caiaphas the High Priest who took Jesus into custody, interrogated him before the Sanhedrin, then haled Jesus to Pilate and had him - against Pilate's better judgment - sentenced to crucifixion.

About these religious/political leaders Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23.

I think that is a bit of a tough sell. The Pharisees were mainly religious leaders and scholars. Any sense of being political seems to be mainly to keep people in line with the Law and the regulations they added on. Matthew 23 cannot be used as any justification for calling out political leaders, much less mocking them or calling them names. First, Jesus was perfect and impartial in his judgements. We are not. Second, Jesus was clearly addressing religious issues--that the Pharisees and scribes were leading people away from God when they should be doing the opposite, being full of pride and sin. There is nothing political in that passage.

Churches would be much better off calling out the many false and heretical teachings that permeate large sections of the Church, dealing with the sin inside of it, and learning to pray again. If the Church wants to make a difference in this world, that is where the focus should be.

 

[jasonc]

I think that is a bit of a tough sell. The Pharisees were mainly religious leaders and scholars. Any sense of being political seems to be mainly to keep people in line with the Law and the regulations they added on. Matthew 23 cannot be used as any justification for calling out political leaders, much less mocking them or calling them names. First, Jesus was perfect and impartial in his judgements. We are not. Second, Jesus was clearly addressing religious issues--that the Pharisees and scribes were leading people away from God when they should be doing the opposite, being full of pride and sin. There is nothing political in that passage.

Churches would be much better off calling out the many false and heretical teachings that permeate large sections of the Church, dealing with the sin inside of it, and learning to pray again. If the Church wants to make a difference in this world, that is where the focus should be.

Ok so Wilberforce and the abolition movement is a no go

No christians in amy office or government work .don't engage your neighbor if inclined

My church puts up signs that say

Amendment 4 – Not What it Seems – Way Too Extreme

votenoon4florida.com

These get removed ,defaced etc

 

[Free]

Ok so Wilberforce and the abolition movement is a no go

No christians in amy office or government work .don't engage your neighbor if inclined

I’m not sure how you came to those conclusions from what I said. I never said that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics—Wilberforce was a politician—or that political issues should never be discussed from the pulpit. The problem, as it seems to me, is that too many American Christians hold up Trump as their Saviour. They may deny it, but their words and actions prove otherwise.

The Church’s main mandate is to go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. Yet, the Church is full of false teachings, entertainment as “worship,” pride, materialism, selfishness, abuse, adultery, idolatry, watching of pornography, lack of prayer, etc.

My point is that the Church would accomplish far more and actually be effective in culture if they cleaned house, got right with God, and prayed properly and like they meant it. Then, and only then, would the change come that Christians want and the world needs. Political talk and action by churches is next to pointless otherwise.

As it is, the Church in the West deserves judgment with serious consequences.

My church puts up signs that say

Amendment 4 – Not What it Seems – Way Too Extreme

votenoon4florida.com

These get removed ,defaced etc

That should be expected, right?

 

[jasonc]

I’m not sure how you came to those conclusions from what I said. I never said that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics—Wilberforce was a politician—or that political issues should never be discussed from the pulpit. The problem, as it seems to me, is that too many American Christians hold up Trump as their Saviour. They may deny it, but their words and actions prove otherwise.

The Church’s main mandate is to go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. Yet, the Church is full of false teachings, entertainment as “worship,” pride, materialism, selfishness, abuse, adultery, idolatry, watching of pornography, lack of prayer, etc.

My point is that the Church would accomplish far more and actually be effective in culture if they cleaned house, got right with God, and prayed properly and like they meant it. Then, and only then, would the change come that Christians want and the world needs. Political talk and action by churches is next to pointless otherwise.

As it is, the Church in the West deserves judgment with serious consequences.


That should be expected, right?

I don't know of any one iny church who see trump as a savior .

We have posters here who believe he would undo things .

 

[Free]

I don't know of any one iny church who see trump as a savior .

We have posters here who believe he would undo things .

It's on both sides. People may not say it, but their actions and words show that their hope is in their particular leader. Prayer will accomplish far more than any vote or hope in a political leader.

My only point in this thread is that politics from the pulpit should be kept to a minimum, as that is not the Church's mandate. As the Church, we are supposed to be fighting for and working for Christ's kingdom, primarily the salvation of souls, but certainly it is more than that.

We can and should be critical of leaders, but we should not be calling them names or placing so much hope in them.

 

[jasonc]

It's on both sides. People may not say it, but their actions and words show that their hope is in their particular leader. Prayer will accomplish far more than any vote or hope in a political leader.

My only point in this thread is that politics from the pulpit should be kept to a minimum, as that is not the Church's mandate. As the Church, we are supposed to be fighting for and working for Christ's kingdom, primarily the salvation of souls, but certainly it is more than that.

We can and should be critical of leaders, but we should not be calling them names or placing so much hope in them.

Let me put it this way https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/l...-electric-system-effective-monday/2270827002/


I lived that despite I wasn't a resident of Vero to vote no or yes .my job was on the line . No local church could ever pay my mortgage . I gave my opinion on that situation and why I was anti fpl. Ta da years later the prices are in fact even more and we'll I saw things with fpl with milton because I knew of the nature .fpl is begging the stare can we get our money back from fixing the power ? They used to be allowed to charge extra for that .

Some night not be able to spend money like that and it's a choice of food or no power . There are situations where a job is decided that hinges on an office

Rent from 2013 till I left and came back to Vero has increased a ton .houses and crap box apts here are renting more then I pay in mortgage ! Wages haven't kept up .I know mechanics on welfare that work forty hours a week .!

So yes some do have a lean of hope for a politician to rescue them .

Let's use Ukraine shall we ?


Currently if Kamala or Trump wins .it might mean my grandson will see war as korea has sent troops to that theater and the war over the inchon peninsula is but a truce. They could call it .I have old troops that are on the border of Ukraine for what not mission and second cousin that was injured there and collected a va rating .

It's likely www3 ,some having not seen war might be a bit hopeful for trump who is far less hesitant to fightb.we are human you can talk prayer etc but when that gun is aimed that human emotion isn't going be hidden or not there .

 

[Tenchi]

I think that is a bit of a tough sell. The Pharisees were mainly religious leaders and scholars. Any sense of being political seems to be mainly to keep people in line with the Law and the regulations they added on.

A "tough sell"? Perhaps to those who are already invested in a contrary view; but to me, that the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Sadducees, et al. wielded political power/authority, as well as religious power, is quite evident in Scripture. Who were the ones who stoned Stephen to death? It wasn't the Romans. Who was it that became a terror to the church, arresting and imprisoning Christians of the Early Church? Was it an agent of Rome acting on Roman authority? Who was it that arrested Jesus in Gethsemane and where did they bring him to be interrogated? It wasn't Romans who took Jesus and it wasn't before Roman authorities he was first prosecuted. Who was it that brought Jesus before Pilate declaring that Jesus had done things worthy of death? It wasn't a Roman authority. And so on. It seems very plain to me in Scripture that the religious leaders of the Jewish community of Christ's time wielded great power that extended beyond the merely religious, establishing public policy for the Jews, acting as political liaisons between the Jewish community and the Roman authorities, and able to exert significant political pressure upon local Romans authorities in their roles as religious leaders.

Matthew 23 cannot be used as any justification for calling out political leaders, much less mocking them or calling them names. First, Jesus was perfect and impartial in his judgements. We are not.

Well, in compensation for the fact that we aren't Jesus, we have both the divinely-inspired word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19). As a result, we have both an objective and supremely authoritative basis from which to identify and call out evil (the Bible) and a supernatural guide in so doing (the Holy Spirit). We may not be Jesus but we aren't therefore utterly devoid of wisdom, truth and the responsibility to publicly decry the wickedness of those in political power.

Also, I've never suggested Christians ought to mock political leaders, but they most certainly are to call evil men what they are, regardless of their station, just as Jesus, Paul, John, Jude, James and Peter did.

Second, Jesus was clearly addressing religious issues--that the Pharisees and scribes were leading people away from God when they should be doing the opposite, being full of pride and sin. There is nothing political in that passage.

I didn't say that Matthew 23 was a political polemic by Christ, only that his moral criticisms of the Jewish religious leaders of his time was necessarily a criticism also of men who were, in some measure, political leaders.

Churches would be much better off calling out the many false and heretical teachings that permeate large sections of the Church, dealing with the sin inside of it, and learning to pray again. If the Church wants to make a difference in this world, that is where the focus should be.

It isn't an either-or thing: Either the Church fixates on its own deterioration or it fixates on the deterioration of the culture. It is possible for the Church to do both, which I think it has a God-given responsibility to do. If Christians wait for the Church to become perfect (whatever that is) before it addresses secular culture, the Church will never speak to the sort of moral/spiritual madness happening now in North America.

 

[Free]

A "tough sell"? Perhaps to those who are already invested in a contrary view; but to me, that the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Sadducees, et al. wielded political power/authority, as well as religious power, is quite evident in Scripture. Who were the ones who stoned Stephen to death? It wasn't the Romans. Who was it that became a terror to the church, arresting and imprisoning Christians of the Early Church? Was it an agent of Rome acting on Roman authority? Who was it that arrested Jesus in Gethsemane and where did they bring him to be interrogated? It wasn't Romans who took Jesus and it wasn't before Roman authorities he was first prosecuted. Who was it that brought Jesus before Pilate declaring that Jesus had done things worthy of death? It wasn't a Roman authority. And so on. It seems very plain to me in Scripture that the religious leaders of the Jewish community of Christ's time wielded great power that extended beyond the merely religious, establishing public policy for the Jews, acting as political liaisons between the Jewish community and the Roman authorities, and able to exert significant political pressure upon local Romans authorities in their roles as religious leaders.

All based on the Law. They were religious, pseudo-political leaders.

Well, in compensation for the fact that we aren't Jesus, we have both the divinely-inspired word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19). As a result, we have both an objective and supremely authoritative basis from which to identify and call out evil (the Bible) and a supernatural guide in so doing (the Holy Spirit). We may not be Jesus but we aren't therefore utterly devoid of wisdom, truth and the responsibility to publicly decry the wickedness of those in political power.

And, yet, as I stated, Jesus was perfect and impartial in his judgements; we most certainly are not. We must take much more cau

Also, I've never suggested Christians ought to mock political leaders, but they most certainly are to call evil men what they are, regardless of their station, just as Jesus, Paul, John, Jude, James and Peter did.

You said: "Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23."

And: 'Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall"'

Those imply that because Jesus and Paul mocked them by calling them names, that it is okay for Christians to do so. Rather, we should do what we are commanded to do:

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (ESV)

Rom 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (ESV)

1Pe 2:17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (ESV)

1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (ESV)

I didn't say that Matthew 23 was a political polemic by Christ, only that his moral criticisms of the Jewish religious leaders of his time was necessarily a criticism also of men who were, in some measure, political leaders.

As a justification for calling out "religious/political leaders."

It isn't an either-or thing:

I never said it was.

Either the Church fixates on its own deterioration or it fixates on the deterioration of the culture. It is possible for the Church to do both, which I think it has a God-given responsibility to do.

Yes, it's both, but the primary function of the Church has to do with spiritual things and bringing about Christ's kingdom. The Church in the West would be far more effective in the world if it ceased being so much like the world.

If Christians wait for the Church to become perfect (whatever that is)

Which is also something I never stated.

before it addresses secular culture, the Church will never speak to the sort of moral/spiritual madness happening now in North America.

I don't think you understood my argument. The Church in the West, maybe particularly in the U.S., has so much sin in it, that it has become all but ineffective. For those in the Church to call out politicians for their evils and moral shortcomings when it tolerates those same things within its walls, is utter hypocrisy.

It also seems that many have lost sight of, or subconsciously deny, the real power of prayer that literally can change nations and has done so. That is a part of the primary function of the Church, but most in the West believe more strongly in the power of their vote and their voice, just like the world. They have all but forgotten what is actually going on:

Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
...
Eph 6:18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, (ESV)

 

[Tenchi]

You said: "Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23."

And: 'Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall"'

Those imply that because Jesus and Paul mocked them by calling them names, that it is okay for Christians to do so.

This wasn't mere name-calling but, by way of well-chosen word-pictures, appropriately describing the actual nature of those they criticized. But, yes, their example does offer ground for Christians to do likewise, confronting sin wherever and in whomever they encounter it.

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (ESV)

There is no greater love I can show a sinner than to shine an exposing light upon their sin and warn them of the devastation that God has promised their sin will inevitably produce in their life. Sin hardens, deafens, blinds, sears the conscience, quenches the Spirit, and produces corruption and death (Romans 6:23; James 4:16; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 3:13, etc.). It is, in my view, an evil person who, knowing these things, remains silent about them in the company of sinners, refusing to call sin and the sinner what they are.

Psalm 50:18-21
18 "When you see a thief, you are pleased with him, And you associate with adulterers.
19 "You let your mouth loose in evil And your tongue frames deceit.
20 "You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son.
21 "These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.

I never said it was.

And I never actually said that you had said that it was. But we both are capable of making reasonable inferences from the other's words.

Yes, it's both, but the primary function of the Church has to do with spiritual things and bringing about Christ's kingdom. The Church in the West would be far more effective in the world if it ceased being so much like the world.

Yes. Agreed.

I don't think you understood my argument.

No, I understood it very well.

The Church in the West, maybe particularly in the U.S., has so much sin in it, that it has become all but ineffective. For those in the Church to call out politicians for their evils and moral shortcomings when it tolerates those same things within its walls, is utter hypocrisy.

Yes, Christians who are guilty of the same things of which they're accusing political leaders ought to keep their mouths shut. But a generally poor spiritual state of affairs in the Church ought never to silence the godly few from fulfilling their God-given responsibility, inside and outside of the Church, to expose (Ephesians 5:11-13) and challenge sin where they find it. Their doing so is even more vital when the Church is in widespread moral/spiritual compromise and decline - just as it is in a culture about which the same is true.

It also seems that many have lost sight of, or subconsciously deny, the real power of prayer that literally can change nations and has done so. That is a part of the primary function of the Church, but most in the West believe more strongly in the power of their vote and their voice, just like the world.

Agreed. I think what you've observed here is the consequence of a morally and spiritually corrupt Church ignoring what God has said about those who come to Him in prayer in an unholy condition. He won't hear the prayers of a wicked person, even if they're one of His (Psalm 66:18; Isaiah 59:2; 1 Peter 3:12). And so, since North American Christians won't walk in holiness before God, and their prayers, then, encounter a God with His fingers in His ears, they neglect prayer. Voting, though, demands a whole lot less of the unholy Christian, giving them a chance to feel they're doing the right thing, that they're being virtuous, while their lives are filled with moral and spiritual garbage.

It's a vicious circle, isn't it?: Unholy believers neglect prayer and because they do, they grow more unholy. And the more unholy they become, the more they neglect prayer, as a consequence, growing more unholy still. Yikes.

 

[miamited]

No christians in amy office or government work .don't engage your neighbor if inclined

Hi jasonc

I think christians can hold just about any job they like so long as they work at their job as God has said. And we are always free to speak to our neighbors with love and respect, understanding that they are just like we used to be. I'm not clear on where, in the previous discussions, you gleaned this idea that anyone was saying that christians shouldn't work in government or talk to their neighbors about the love of God that He has shown through His Son, Jesus.

 

[WIP]

It's on both sides. People may not say it, but their actions and words show that their hope is in their particular leader. Prayer will accomplish far more than any vote or hope in a political leader.

My only point in this thread is that politics from the pulpit should be kept to a minimum, as that is not the Church's mandate. As the Church, we are supposed to be fighting for and working for Christ's kingdom, primarily the salvation of souls, but certainly it is more than that.

We can and should be critical of leaders, but we should not be calling them names or placing so much hope in them.

I agree. Especially in the type of government we have where the people are the government. Might be a little different if we lived in a monarchy where the king's word is law. But, even then, when the king's word violates God's law then it may be necessary and right to oppose it.

 

[jasonc]

No politician rules over us in america.

Being a retired military. I didn't nor was I able to rule over anyone under me .

I was delegated authority by regs or by command authority.

Ie I didn't need a direct order to tell pvt snuffy his uniform was out of regs but I would need a command directly or indirectly if a mission was coming to ask him to go get a vehicle assign to him and get another and take it to fuel it and load it and have it ready .aka a warning order ,pre combat check or imspection.

I don't know of any job outside that does that the closest is either airport work and law enforcement.airports have operations and procedures for security breaches ,birds that are inbound and will likely need the crash truck .have crashed and need to be moved .etc

 

[JLB]

I think that is a bit of a tough sell. The Pharisees were mainly religious leaders and scholars. Any sense of being political seems to be mainly to keep people in line with the Law and the regulations they added on.

Israel was governed by God’s law.

Israel’s leaders were the government of the LORD.

 

[Free]

Israel was governed by God’s law.

Israel’s leaders were the government of the LORD.

Kings were, yes, but not so much Pharisees.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Are political leaders above direct and public reproach? Is this what the Bible teaches and demonstrates? Not at all. From the following passage, primarily, some mistaken Christians draw the conclusion that one must never harshly criticize political leaders, calling their sin what it is, but this is not what is in evidence in the record of the Bible, nor is it actually what the passage indicates.

Romans 13:1-7
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

In the time of Peter and Paul, the Pharisees held not only religious offices and power but also a measure of political and civil authority, too. To see this, one has only to consider the behaviour of Caiaphas the High Priest who took Jesus into custody, interrogated him before the Sanhedrin, then haled Jesus to Pilate and had him - against Pilate's better judgment - sentenced to crucifixion.

About these religious/political leaders Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23.

Peter, too, defied the religious and political authority of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:18-19 and Acts 5:17-40 and the authority of Herod in Acts 12:1-17, escaping imprisonment (for the second time) by Herod. Peter was very blunt about his defiance of the religious and political leaders of his time, saying to them at one point:

Acts 5:29-30
29 ..."We must obey God rather than men.
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.

What did Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, declare directly to the high priest and Sanhedrin gathered to interrogate him?

Acts 7:51-53
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

The apostle Paul also confronted the local Jewish authorities who had beaten and imprisoned he and Silas and then tried to release them quietly and send them away. Instead of honor and deference, Paul declared defiantly,

Acts 16:37
37..."They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out."

Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall" when, during interrogation by a Roman commander, Ananias wrongly commanded that Paul be hit in the face (Acts 23:1-11). Paul acknowledged that he'd have curbed his tongue had he known the religious office Ananias occupied. This acknowledgement didn't prevent Paul, however, from craftily setting the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another, causing such an uproar between them that the Roman authorities had to take him into protective custody. It's hard to see how Paul "honored" the religious/political leaders in doing this even though he'd apologized for saying about Ananias what he actually thought of him.

In light of these things, I don't see good biblical ground for the forbidding of any and all criticism of either religious or political leaders. It was this very sort of silent "deference" (aka "honor") that most of the Church in Germany showed to Hitler that helped the Jewish Holocaust to occur. I, for one, will have no part in such "honor" and I don't believe that a moral, God-honoring Christian can claim to be so and refuse to call evil men - whatever their station - what they are.

2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Since the preaching of the Gospel directly opposed the established religious and political authority of the Jewish leaders of the time of the Early Church, what did Paul mean here? It seems obvious to me that he is not forbidding overt opposition to, and criticism of, such authority (in which he himself participated and for which he was abused and imprisoned). He is, I believe, speaking very generally here about Christians fomenting violent political rebellion and in so doing confirming the growing rumors of Paul's day about Christianity being a dangerous religious sect aimed primarily at overthrowing the social and political order.

3 For 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;

It is, of course, patently obvious that this is a very general statement, a statement, for the most part, in principle only rather than in fact. Many have been the incredibly wicked rulers of nations throughout human history who have been themselves a terrible cause for fear among the righteous, perpetrating great evil upon all those over whom they gained power. Think: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

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 for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Here, Paul described the "minister of God for good," who differs widely from the many despotic mass-murderers populating human history and their agents of oppression and death. It is, I think, a very foolish Christian who takes what Paul wrote here to mean all rulers that God has set over nations are "ministers of good" and so are worthy of respect and deference. See above.

5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

The word "therefore" signals a conclusion from foregoing premises. In this case, the "therefore" is connected to rulers who are "not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil," who are "ministers of God to you for good," not any and every ruler, evil or not, who obtains power over, or within, a nation.

6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers 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.

Yes, even evil kings and rulers serve God's ends, as they did in the OT. And so, in view of this fact, where obeying the laws of the land serve a clearly moral and/or practical good, as in the case of paying taxes, even though the ruler of that land is evil, the Christian ought to "render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due...," etc.. None of this, though, forbids offering criticism of, and opposition to, evil rulers.

Yeah, we're to submit to our authorities' will except when their laws and regulations violate God's will for our lives.

 

[miamited]

Kings were, yes, but not so much Pharisees.

Hi Free

You should look into life in Jesus' day in Israel and who ran the rules and laws of the people.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Israel was governed by God’s law.

Israel’s leaders were the government of the LORD.

Hi @Free

You should look into life in Jesus' day in Israel and who ran the rules and laws of the people.

During NT times, however, they were under Roman rule not their own, so the authority of Israel's "government" was severely limited (Note: This is somewhat a response to one of Tenchi's arguments)

 

[JLB]

During NT times, however, they were under Roman rule not their own, so the authority of Israel's "government" was severely limited (Note: This is somewhat a response to one of Tenchi's arguments)

So if the Roman rulers made it a law to bow down and worship a statue of Cesar then the Jews would be obligated to obey?