Romans 13:1-6…?

reply to post by Joecroft


Hi Joecroft, and a Blessed new year to you friend.

You mean, contradictions between Jesus own words, throughout the New Testament…right…?

Yes, although the words of Jesus have been altered also for religious agenda.

It is interesting the misinterpretations by others applying false context to Paul's verse because it is clear as day to me (and you also I see) that he was referencing the rulers in worldly authority as do numerous other Biblical translations to the text, which further shows the context throughout accompanying verses (as you highlighted). The reason I added the Hebrews, 1 Peter and Ephesians verses previously also was to demonstrate (in anticipation) for the 'defenders' sake, that the Bible bears repeated references to submitting to such worldly authority 'appointed by god'.

Translation comparisons for Romans 13:1 with commentary.
www.biblestudytools.com...

And no doubt the gods of this world did appoint their subjugating rulers and kingships. The same gods that instituted the churches that had absolutely nothing to do with Christ's will according to the Gospels. It all had to do with birthing a 're-legioning'....a mergence of the Holy to the rebel legion to usurp the original ministry of Christ. Those contradictions from Paulian writings mentioned I see also as a work of usurping furthermore to confuse/divide the flock, in which a 'Law of Confusion' has been deliberately applied to the Bible assembly demonstrating a duality of opposing forces in operation.

reply to post by paxnatus

Originally posted by paxnatus
Okay here is where the confusion is I think. In the church, there is also a governing authority...namely the pastor, elders and deacons. They are called to look after God's people.

But the word “authorities” in the verses, is not talking about the ministers, pastors, elders and deacons, that the letter is addressed too.

In other words, the “authorities” i.e. the pastors, the elders, deacons and ministers etc… that the verses are addressed too, are not the same “authorities” that the verses are talking about.

I think that’s where your confusion, is creeping in. (see A below)

Originally posted by paxnatus
Let me back up, in order to understand what Paul is saying in the passage, you have to know who he is addressing. This is why I said he is addressing "the believers" God has placed ministers over His believers these are God's servants. he is not talking about man's government.

The verse is talking about the Governmental authorities…even though it’s addressed to ministers and pastors etc…

Romans 13:4
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Do ministers and pastors carry swords, to be agents of wrath…?

The verse above, is talking about the rulers (the Roman authorities) and the last sentence, which is in context with the previous sentence, goes on to say that these “rulers”, the ones who bear swords, are “Gods servants”…it really couldn’t get any clearer…

(A) In simple terms, Paul is addressing the ministers and pastors etc, (who are “authorities” themselves, in a sense), but He’s telling them, that these other authorities/ the rulers/ the Roman authorities etc…, have been appointed by God…and in the first sentence, he’s states they (the Roman authorities…not the ministers and pastors) are all “Gods servants”…which is repeated again (“Gods Servants”), in the last sentence…

So even if you think the first sentence, in verse 4, is referring to the “authorities”, being the ministers and pastors etc…, the last sentence, clearly does NOT.

And anyone writing those verses, would have made a clear distinction between the two, and used a different phrase/wording, when referring to Governing authorities, as apposed to referring to ministers and pastors (authorities) but that’s just not the case.

And the fact that last sentence in verse 4, makes it clear who these authorities are, means the word “authorities” through the rest of the chapter/verses, must be referring to the Roman authorities…to keep it consistent etc…

Either way, the last sentence, at the very least (and the entire context overall IMO…) clearly states, that the Roman authorities i.e. the rulers, are “Servants of God”…

Originally posted by paxnatus
The Roman government was appointed by men not by God.

Yeah, I agree with you, except, that’s not what the verses say!

Romans 13:1
13 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.

Now admittedly, taken in isolation, the above verse could be meaning the “authorities”, i.e. the ministers and pastors etc…but like I was saying above, that just wouldn’t fit, how the word “authorities” is being used, elsewhere and throughout the verses 1 to 6.

And just to add -

The verse above is also making a generally wide statement, that all authorities, are established by God, by stating “there is no authority except that which God has established”…which not only covers pastors and ministers etc… but also, all other governing bodies as well, such is the wide generality of the statement…

Which means what you wrote above, “Roman government was appointed by men not by God”, goes against, what the verses are saying…

So you’re in agreement with me, in that the Roman Government, was appointed by men, but your now in disagreement, with what the verses are really saying, without realizing it!!!


Does this post, make it any clearer for you…?


- JC

reply to post by PrimeLight


Hey PrimeLight…

A Happy New Year to you too friend…

Originally posted by Joecroft
You mean, contradictions between Jesus own words, throughout the New Testament…right…?

Originally posted by PrimeLight
Yes, although the words of Jesus have been altered also for religious agenda.

I believe the same thing…mainly because there are certain things Jesus says, which seem to go against his other statements, which in turn has an impact on doctrinal issues.

So I’ve pretty much concluded that certain words Jesus speaks are true, but that there are other words, which conflict, and which IMO were probably added in later on, to help support a certain type of theology. But I’m pretty sure that Jesus, new, that those of a discerning mind and spirit, would be able to find the truth.

Originally posted by PrimeLight
It is interesting the misinterpretations by others applying false context to Paul's verse because it is clear as day to me (and you also I see) that he was referencing the rulers in worldly authority as do numerous other Biblical translations to the text, which further shows the context throughout accompanying verses (as you highlighted).

Yeah, it’s really bazaar. It’s almost as if people are just going along with what the concordances say, without really comparing other translations, and breaking down the entire chapter for themselves. Not to mention, how history unfolded, at the time these writings were put together.

Originally posted by PrimeLight
The reason I added the Hebrews, 1 Peter and Ephesians verses previously also was to demonstrate (in anticipation) for the 'defenders' sake, that the Bible bears repeated references to submitting to such worldly authority 'appointed by god'.

I actually missed your post, too busy responding to other posters

Yeah, those verses add extra weight, to the overall picture…

It’s worth putting them up again, so people can seem them…

Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

This one above is pretty bad, for surely only God keeps watch over your soul, not the ones who are killing and persecuting Christians!

Ephesians 6:5-8 ESV
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

This verse is just as bad, because God is not about fear at all IMO…never mind the fact that it’s supports slavery (which you pointed in your other post)… the political spin is blindingly obvious…IMO

1 Peter 2:13-17 (KJV)
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.15 For so is the will of God that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

And this one, is basically just another typical politicians spin, because following Christ, is being constantly tied in, with following every ordinance of man. As if by doing one, you are automatically doing the other.

And the verse takes no account of whether those ordnances, are actually following Christ themselves. And when you add into the equation, Christians being persecuted and killed by those in power, just because of their beliefs, it makes it even worse.

- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


If I'm not mistaken, Christianity was illegal at one point in Rome. The "ordinances of man" dictated that no one should practice Christianity, so were those Christians being killed not obeying the commands of god by still practicing it? Them practicing Christianity obviously caused "groaning" for those in power, otherwise they wouldn't have systematically persecuted them for 300 years.

It seems as though god is asking two opposite things at once here.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If I'm not mistaken, Christianity was illegal at one point in Rome. The "ordinances of man" dictated that no one should practice Christianity, so were those Christians being killed not obeying the commands of god by still practicing it?

Them practicing Christianity obviously caused "groaning" for those in power, otherwise they wouldn't have systematically persecuted them for 300 years.

It seems as though god is asking two opposite things at once here.

A very good point!

Yes, Christianity was illegal up to point. But the more I think about this, the more likely it appears that it was just a certain type of Christianity, that was being persecuted.

Which means there is clear element, of “follow our brand of Christianity”, because it’s from God and yours isn’t etc..

And of course, history has well established, that once the Roman church was set up, it began systematic persecutions against just about every other form of Christianity, and other beliefs.

But to be honest I’m pretty sure that the early persecution of the Christians, by Paul and the Pharisees, was most likely sanctioned by the Roman authorities. Otherwise those taking part in the persecutions would not have done so, if they feared the Roman authorities would imprison them or have them executed.

So in other words, you wouldn’t go around killing Christians, (which would surely have been breaking the Law) knowing you could be executed yourself, for a breach of the peace etc…

But you might do those things, if you knew you were going to get away with it…most likely because the Roman authorities had aloud it to take place.

And considering the political connections between the Jewish governors and the Roman senates, and the fact those Jewish governors, were sympathetic towards the Pharisees….it all makes perfect sense…IMO…

- JC