The American Revolution/Rebellion

Hope you get a chance to answer soon.

Not to load you down (the first questions are important, answer them first), but as I've been thinking on this I have some other questions:

1. Most importantly, how do you determine what or who is the governing authority? There has to be some kind of definition. It appears to me that those who wish to rebel against authority they do not like need only go so far as to "prove" that the authority they rebel against does not count. You need some kind of understanding, but I do not see it in scripture. Perhaps you could point me to it.

2. What happens when you are in an area that rebels against a greater power? The American Revolution is a great example: should someone in 1776 have submitted to the British or the newly proclaimed American government? Or in the South during the Civil War? At what point should their submission change?

3. Similarly, what if different parts of the same government disagree? You said the Consititution is not who we submit too, but the ones who interpret it. OK, but what do we do if the President where to ignore the Supreme Court? Are we to submit to the Supreme Court or the President? If it is the President, then wouldn't you have meant to say those who ENFORCE the constitution?

4. Finally, what about when your country is taken over by outside forces? Do the outside forces immediately become the governing authorities? What if your previous government still exists, but not in the territory you live in? This seems like it would be a common problem (take the French in WWII for instance).

It all comes down to definition of a government. We must have some definition that can work, and perhaps there is scripture I have overlooked that makes this clear.

 

jesus christ submits to the roman government ( the middle east having been brutul invaded by rome) note who did not submit mark 15:7 BARABBAS ...

 

IT is strange to see the "rights" of engish men brought up and how those " rights" had been stepped on by the wicked old king (1 peter 2:13-14) how about this were these english men christains ? for christains are told by the bible to suffer wrong ( gal. 5:11 & 1 peter 3: 9 ) by the way the ungodly church of rev.3:14 you know the LAODICEANS (rights of the people ) are considered by God luke warm that fits this unscriptural crowd today .. notice how there is little to no scripture used by the opposite view. STRANGE..

 

at last some consistency of thought according to scripture amen,amen,amen ..

 

No Deceit,

I think you answered most of the questions I had, and as I expected. The heart of it all seems to be the Christians reaction to evil in general, of which government is often an example. I agree entirely that your definition of government is the only plausible one: the guy holding the sword. And I again agree that Paul does not give allowance for revolt. And scripture is clear about obeying God over men, as you correctly point out.

Yet I am still not understanding the point of verses 3-4. At the very time Paul wrote this, it would appear that it most definitely did NOT describe the current authority. Further, looking at history I think you would be very hard pressed to identify any governments that match these descriptions, particularly in light of the only mechanism for a Christian to judge what is evil and good (scripture). In fact, God himself is rather clear about what having a ruler means, and tells Samuel to warn them before they take a king (1 Sam 8:11-18)

So if those verses are neither descriptive nor normative, what purpose do they serve? This is my central confusion over this scripture.

 

If every authority is appointed by GOD, then our current authorities are appointed by GOD. If you are going to make a point blank statement, then deal with the reality that the American revolution was something appointed by GOD to happen, and the evidence is that there are now different authorities in place than the British. It's kind of circular logic, but valid it must be because the Scriptures state that it is so.

 

No Deceit,

I did not ask rather verses 3 and 4 override the 1st and 2nd. I do not think they do. Please read again the question I am asking:

So if those verses are neither descriptive nor normative, what purpose do they serve? This is my central confusion over this scripture.

The answer you gave seems to be "Their purpose is NOT to override verse 1."

That is not helpful. I know what they do NOT do. What I am asking is what purpose they DO serve and what wisdom we should glean from them. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Clearly that includes Romans 13 vs. 3-4. Since we have ruled out these verses being normative (describing the way governments MUST be) and they do not seem to be descriptive (describing the way governments ARE) I am at a bit of a loss as to their purpose, and I am honestly asking you what you believe that purpose is.

 

Patimen,

I think I can hopefully answer your question. Verses 3 and 4 of Romans chapter 13 are simply a continuation of the thought began in verse 1. If you are obeying the law, you have no reason to fear government. Those who are doing wrong will be punished, and this is the way GOD has established it. What is unclear to you about these verses? There's no secret meaning there or anything, it's just stating facts.

Hope this helps.

Chris H.

 

Chargrove,

I'm sorry, but that is not clear at all. Which facts are these verses stating? The situation under the Romans? Our own Savior was executed by this same government. He submitted to it as an example for us, but there is NO WAY one can describe the Roman rulers as being "not a terror to good works, but to evil," as our Savior is clearly the very DEFINITION of good works, and Barabas the opposite. Who exaclty was the Roman government a terror to then?

Again, I do not dispute the obvious conclusion of submission to even evil authority (though never obeying evil commands), but I find that history (Biblical as well as extra-Biblical) indicates rulers are more often than not a terror to good works, and often praisers of evil and ignorers (at best) of good. Remember particularly that the definition of evil and good MUST be a biblical definition, as Christians have no other standard by which to judge.

Perhaps 3 and 4 describes the way government should be, or the way it was designed to be? I cannot accept the reading that it is the way governments ARE.

The problem with getting into "should be" is that those seeking to rebel will use it as an excuse, saying we should revolt against governments that are not the way they should be. This goes back to my observation: if this were the correct reading than these verses would not be a call to submit but to constantly rebel! That flies in the face of not only Christ's message but also the actions of the early Church.

Still, maybe "should be" is the right reading? If you still believe 3 and 4 describe anything like the real world, I would be curious to see which governments you think live up to this today, or during history.

 

Well, no plan we humans concoct is perfect. So, using your definition of "good", there is NO "GOOD" government on earth. The author of this passage knows that, I imagine. He's not claiming that governments are the spotless, perfect example by which we should live our lives. He's saying obey the laws established by government. You seem to be reading into the text things which do not apply to this passage. Of course he's talking about the real world.

For better or worse, GOD has a plan that is unfolding. Whether you or I agree or disagree with it is not relevant to how things will happen. "May YOUR will be done." Remember that? True, the Romans were, to some degree, scum, but one cannot say that there was no nobility in any of their officials or ideals or that their form of government was not a necessary prototype for future generations. (Hey, they had a drainage system...that's a huge step forward in urban planning! )

In this case, I let the text stand for what it is and move on to more important matters.

 

Hi No Deceit,

I just read all this thread and think your posts are EXCELLENT! It was totally wrong for the Americans to revolt, just as it was wrong for Parliament to revolt against Charles I. What amazes me most about this thread though is the complete and utter lack of scripture being used to justify the revolution. It seems that the pro-revolters have just packed up and gone home because they realize they cannot win the argument on Biblical grounds.