When Does God's Law Take Presedence?

[WIP]

This morning at our weekly prayer breakfast we were reading from Romans 12 and 13. The first half of chapter 13 raised a question for me and I’d like to bring this question to this group to see where it leads. Chapter 12 fits into this too because it talks about how one should behave.

Here’s the text.

KJV
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


NASB
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.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
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;
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.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

The question that came to me was, “How do I reconcile this if the governing authority is evil?” An obvious example that comes to mind is the governing authority in Germany during the 1930’s. I am of German descent. Suppose I was an adult during that time and was ordered by my governing authority, aka Adolf Hilter, to persecute and murder Jews, how would I reconcile Romans 13 with the commandment “Thou shalt not kill?”

Matthew 23:1-3 also comes to mind.
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

 

[Ryan]

I cannot support a government/system, or be in subjection to such when our governments continue to promote and sponsor genocide of the unborn, pander to special interest groups yet ignore the voices of the church, and general corruptness in all levels of politics. I truly believe this is not what Romans 13 is telling us to be in subjection too. If that was the case, then how does it speak to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot cruel, evil men like you said. Can you tell me those people under their rule had to be in subjection to them? I don’t think that was the case.

Romans 13:1 “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.”

At the time, Nero was the ruler of Rome and I don’t think one had to remind the Jew and Gentile believers of their obligations to the state. Matthew 22:21 “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God.” Nero was a brutalizer and a persecutor of believers, so to say this governing authority was established by God would have to be wrong. That would be a slap in the face to them. I would say these type of regimes are God willed, but to say they are ordained and established by God is a big error. Revelations 12,13,18 speak to the rise and rule of the antichrist. Are we really to be in subjection to this authority? I don’t think so. 1 Corinthians 2:6 “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;” Speaks about the secular governments and not having the wisdom that will pass away.

Romans 13:2 “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

Really? If I was in Germany and didn’t go along with what the Nazi’s were doing, I would be condemned? Again, this is completely illogical. Evil is evil whether it’s the genocide of Jews, or the genocide of the unborn. In one era or the other, I believe we are called to stand up for the vulnerable, not be in silent and passive subjection to it.

Romans 13:3 “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.”

If we are talking about secular governments and subjecting ourselves to their rule, this verse could not make sense. Nero was the ruler at the time, and persecuted believers ruthlessly. He was a ruler that murdered and tortured believers for his amusement. Verse 3 is stating with good behaviour, one does not need to worry about being fearful of the rulers. But with Nero, one had to be fearful of him whether you did good or evil. So again the context could not be about the ruling, secular government of the day.

Romans 13:4-5 “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. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”

Minister of God could not be associated with servants of the Roman Empire who brutalized early Jew and Gentile believers. Why? Because they couldn’t be “rulers and servant of God” in verse 6.

Romans 13:6-8 “For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 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. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”

How could Nero be classified as a “servant of God?” That is why I cannot accept the notion that the previous passages are talking about governments. I believe the previous passages are talking about the leadership and the authority in the churches. Specifically verse 6-8 is talking about the Jerusalem Tax that was imposed on the Jewish and the Gentile believers for the upkeep of the Temple. This did not sit well with new Gentile believers coming into faith of Jesus, as the Temple authorities would not allow Gentiles in to participate in Temple activities, yet imposed this annual tax on the believers. Both Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus attest to this custom, with the latter criticizing such gentiles as "people of the worst sort," who, "renouncing their ancestral religions, would send their tribute and gifts there (to Jerusalem) in heaps." (Tacitus, Histories 5.5.1)

Rereading the above verses to instead of the thought of it being a secular government, to it being the church, and subjection to church leadership, make these passages clearer and harmonize the rest of the chapters before and after Romans 13. This is an oddity, as the chapters before and after speak to believer’s responsibilities in the faith and congregation. Then to put in passages about politics when Nero was a terrorizer of the day. That’s a pill I am having a hard time swallowing at the moment.

 

[Sparkey]

And what of us when we find ourselves bound as slaves to an evil master? May we continue, should we? The Lord has spoken on such things. The message is clear. There are no laws that may be passed against love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self-control. The fruit of the Spirit is to grow in us no matter what situation we are found in.

What if the authorities over us abuse our good natures and compel us to walk with them and carry their load? Shall we walk a mile, or do the better and walk two? No authority may command us where God has restrained and prohibited. Shall we do evil while planning to say on the day of OUR accounting, "But he told me to?"

In a word, "No."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think we can take our cues on how and when to submit, and not submit, to the authorities over us by the way a woman is to submit to her husband:
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18 NIV)

 

[WIP]

So it comes down to "God first."
Throughout scripture we read of evil kings and lords. Apparently that has not changed. God's prophets continued to speak out against them.

So what does it really mean to subject ourselves to the ruling authority? Would it be safe to say that I put God first and stand against this authority when it is clearly against God's authority and subject myself to the consequences of my actions on this earth? That would seem to be what Jesus did, wouldn't it? His disciples also followed a similar path resulting in many being martyred for their actions and there are those we hear about today that follow a similar path.

 

[JLB]

I cannot support a government/system, or be in subjection to such when our governments continue to promote and sponsor genocide of the unborn, pander to special interest groups yet ignore the voices of the church, and general corruptness in all levels of politics. I truly believe this is not what Romans 13 is telling us to be in subjection too. If that was the case, then how does it speak to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot cruel, evil men like you said. Can you tell me those people under their rule had to be in subjection to them? I don’t think that was the case.

Romans 13:1 “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.”

At the time, Nero was the ruler of Rome and I don’t think one had to remind the Jew and Gentile believers of their obligations to the state. Matthew 22:21 “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God.” Nero was a brutalizer and a persecutor of believers, so to say this governing authority was established by God would have to be wrong. That would be a slap in the face to them. I would say these type of regimes are God willed, but to say they are ordained and established by God is a big error. Revelations 12,13,18 speak to the rise and rule of the antichrist. Are we really to be in subjection to this authority? I don’t think so. 1 Corinthians 2:6 “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;” Speaks about the secular governments and not having the wisdom that will pass away.

Romans 13:2 “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

Really? If I was in Germany and didn’t go along with what the Nazi’s were doing, I would be condemned? Again, this is completely illogical. Evil is evil whether it’s the genocide of Jews, or the genocide of the unborn. In one era or the other, I believe we are called to stand up for the vulnerable, not be in silent and passive subjection to it.

Romans 13:3 “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.”

If we are talking about secular governments and subjecting ourselves to their rule, this verse could not make sense. Nero was the ruler at the time, and persecuted believers ruthlessly. He was a ruler that murdered and tortured believers for his amusement. Verse 3 is stating with good behaviour, one does not need to worry about being fearful of the rulers. But with Nero, one had to be fearful of him whether you did good or evil. So again the context could not be about the ruling, secular government of the day.

Romans 13:4-5 “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. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”

Minister of God could not be associated with servants of the Roman Empire who brutalized early Jew and Gentile believers. Why? Because they couldn’t be “rulers and servant of God” in verse 6.

Romans 13:6-8 “For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 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. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”

How could Nero be classified as a “servant of God?” That is why I cannot accept the notion that the previous passages are talking about governments. I believe the previous passages are talking about the leadership and the authority in the churches. Specifically verse 6-8 is talking about the Jerusalem Tax that was imposed on the Jewish and the Gentile believers for the upkeep of the Temple. This did not sit well with new Gentile believers coming into faith of Jesus, as the Temple authorities would not allow Gentiles in to participate in Temple activities, yet imposed this annual tax on the believers. Both Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus attest to this custom, with the latter criticizing such gentiles as "people of the worst sort," who, "renouncing their ancestral religions, would send their tribute and gifts there (to Jerusalem) in heaps." (Tacitus, Histories 5.5.1)

Rereading the above verses to instead of the thought of it being a secular government, to it being the church, and subjection to church leadership, make these passages clearer and harmonize the rest of the chapters before and after Romans 13. This is an oddity, as the chapters before and after speak to believer’s responsibilities in the faith and congregation. Then to put in passages about politics when Nero was a terrorizer of the day. That’s a pill I am having a hard time swallowing at the moment.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

JLB

 

[Ryan]

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
JLB

How does that relate to this thread here? Lost. Or are we here?

 

[JLB]

How does that relate to this thread here? Lost. Or are we here?

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4


For rulers are not a terror to good works,...Against such there is no law.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4


For rulers are not a terror to good works,...Against such there is no law.


JLB

Mark Nanos who wrote a book about the "Mystery of Romans" summed it up like this:

Romans 13:1-7 has to do with the Synagogue government, whose authority the gentile believers were still under.

This was something that did not settle well with many "on either side," and even drew criticism from secular Romans. The Jews in authority were primarily unsympathetic toward the cause of Yeshua, and did not like all of these gentiles "invading their Synagogue" often with ungodly pagan practices and manners.

Many of the new gentile believers, coming directly out of a very anti-Semitic Roman society, and lacking a foundation in Torah, did not understand how their faith was tied to that of the Jews who did not accept Yeshua. The idea of being under the authority of the Synagogue (and these same Jews), was a cause for anger and hostility, as well as the early development of ideas of theirs being a "new faith," replacing that of Israel. (Re: Paul's warning to the gentiles concerning this, in chapters 9-11.)

 

[Sparkey]

All evil authorities (which would by definition mean all authority other than God) share specific things in common. Let's take a real quick look at the broad strokes:

They (authorities other than God) design systems to exploit others.
They (authorities other than God) focus on very small things and seek to trip others over them.
They (authorities other than God) are seen to have been given over to and/or are submitted to "The Lust of the Eye" where there is no satisfaction but only hunger for more.
They (authorities other than God) work to increase their control and justify themselves by actively promoting themselves as 'good'.

Regarding that last one - consider what Jesus said in reply when He was called "good".
Regarding all: consider authorities other than 'governmental'. Are we 'slaves' to Visa and Mastercard? What is the root of evil? The love of money.

This isn't about the Pharisees anymore.

~Sparrow

 

[WIP]

I agree with your Sparrow but then how do we follow or submit to the direction given in Romans 13 knowing that the ruling authority is evil and still stay on the right path? This is where I'm trying to understand Matthew 23:3 where Jesus seems to be saying in effect, "Do as they say but not as they do."

 

[Sparkey]

Maybe my best lesson came when I was forced to respect the law of the land. Prior to standing before the Judge and hearing him pronounce the sentence of nine months incarceration I was an alcoholic in denial. There were behaviors that I demonstrated that were typical and my arrest was made not for my benefit but instead to protect others from my future actions.

I believe to this day that the Lord was with me, working for my benefit in all things, even in what appeared to be my undoing. I did submit. Not only did I attend AA meetings and also use my work provided insurance to seek counseling, I also asked my probation officer to recommend that I be given treatment regarding anger management. She said, "No - I will not do this because as it is you may take anger-management classes, but if the court orders then you will have no choice," to which I replied, "I need it."

So then came the course of imprisonment. I was found guilty (by my own admission) and was sentenced. Yet there was mercy added in to that sentence. The Judge told me that he would give me 3 months off for "Good Time" in advance because he knew that the state would automatically petition the court for custody of my two children (I was a single dad). So my sentence was modified.

When I began to consider my options the possibility of having my 6 months administered by a county south of my residence was considered. They would allow ankle-bracelets. I chose instead to turn myself in to the authorities in my county because I had interviewed three potential jailers. The county to the north offered classes, the county to the south offered home arrest but the one that I turned myself in to for my 6 months spoke to me in a very specific manner.

The Sargent in charge said he has spoken to his wife (a Healthcare Professional) and she said that oftentimes the relationship between primary providers and children in trouble (my son) was critical. He said that what he would do was go before the judge and petition so that I be entered into their work-release program, and that my sentence be modified so that I could meet with my son every week (on Saturdays) during the period of incarceration.

I submitted to that authority and have never regretted it. My six-month sentence was modified. I was officially released every week, completely released and told that they will not even attempt to track or enforce their authority and that my only responsibility to them in the matter of visiting my son (who was in foster care) was to turn myself back in to them on a timely basis.

My son is now almost 30 years old. He gave his life to Jesus while he was in foster care.

~Sparrow

 

[Ryan]

Nice story Sparrow. Praise God.

This thread reminds me of the book of Esther. Mordecai saved King Ahasuerus from assassination. Essentially saving the person who was keeping the Jews captive in their land. Mordecai stayed true to God though by not bowing down to Haman. When the Jews death was decreed, instead of fleeing or having an uprising, they fasted and prayed.

I believe Esther is a good story of how we are to behave in a strange land where the laws are not necessarily God honoring, yet staying true to God.

 

[WIP]

Let's take this another way. My home state of Minnesota has now passed laws that support same sex marriage. At this time I hope this could not happen in the US since in my view it would be a direct violation of the first amendment to the US constitution but suppose a law was passed that denied a clergy person from refusing to marry same sex couples. Now, here's where I am stuck. God put our congress into the position to make these laws. This is truth according to Romans 13 and therefore the clergy person is bound to be subject to these laws. However, for the clergy person to marry this couple would mean denying God's premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. Which is the correct choice for this clergy person to make?

 

[Ryan]

God's laws trump government laws anyday if they are in violation of his sacred commandments.

Esther 3
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Haman’s Plot against the Jews
3 After these events King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and established his authority over all the princes who were with him.
2 All the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman; for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage.
3 Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why are you transgressing the king’s command?”
4 Now it was when they had spoken daily to him and he would not listen to them, that they told Haman to see whether Mordecai’s reason would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew.
5 When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage.
6 But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.

 

[WIP]

Thank you.

 

[JLB]

Let's take this another way. My home state of Minnesota has now passed laws that support same sex marriage. At this time I hope this could not happen in the US since in my view it would be a direct violation of the first amendment to the US constitution but suppose a law was passed that denied a clergy person from refusing to marry same sex couples. Now, here's where I am stuck. God put our congress into the position to make these laws. This is truth according to Romans 13 and therefore the clergy person is bound to be subject to these laws. However, for the clergy person to marry this couple would mean denying God's premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. Which is the correct choice for this clergy person to make?

Honor God rather than man

 

[Sparkey]

I imagine that the clergy person could try to make a distinction between the service that he performs for those who believe in God, where He asks God to join them together and the paperwork that he performs for the state ritual?

Personally I'd refuse without regard to the consequence. What could happen? The state would not want to put the minister in jail but they may want to remove the 501C3 status and require taxes to be paid? I'm unsure what "they" might do but don't think it need be considered. Follow the highest authority and fear not.

 

[jasoncran]

Let's take this another way. My home state of Minnesota has now passed laws that support same sex marriage. At this time I hope this could not happen in the US since in my view it would be a direct violation of the first amendment to the US constitution but suppose a law was passed that denied a clergy person from refusing to marry same sex couples. Now, here's where I am stuck. God put our congress into the position to make these laws. This is truth according to Romans 13 and therefore the clergy person is bound to be subject to these laws. However, for the clergy person to marry this couple would mean denying God's premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. Which is the correct choice for this clergy person to make?

ok, the chaplains in the army cant be forced to marry gays.

 

[Deborah13]

Let's take this another way. My home state of Minnesota has now passed laws that support same sex marriage. At this time I hope this could not happen in the US since in my view it would be a direct violation of the first amendment to the US constitution but suppose a law was passed that denied a clergy person from refusing to marry same sex couples. Now, here's where I am stuck. God put our congress into the position to make these laws. This is truth according to Romans 13 and therefore the clergy person is bound to be subject to these laws. However, for the clergy person to marry this couple would mean denying God's premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. Which is the correct choice for this clergy person to make?

I would refuse. God's laws come first.