RE: 5 minute freewrite 2802 prompt credibility
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
No, that's not quite right ... God Himself instituted human government as a form of stewardship. The entire book of Judges shows this; He Himself raised men at times to deliver and be agents of His justice to the people -- and this is seen back to Moses. Now, men have of course perverted this, but Romans is also clear: government itself is not bad, and when not out of alignment with its original mission to uphold justice and care for the needs of the people, it is a blessing.
0
0
0.000
He established elders and judges, but also warned Israel against demanding a king. He said our leaders would be those who acted as servants, rather than as the rulers of the gentiles.
Yes, He did ... and if one is under such government, that is a good thing. But He also told Christians to submit to the governments they had with only ONE exception: if government commands things that are against the law of God, do not obey those things. Thus, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The Lord and His apostles never uttered one word that would tend toward overthrowing the existing powers that were, and submitted even unto death at times. That is how much God would have us respect the need for human government -- although there are occasions to oppose specific ungodly orders, "Fear God. Honor the king" go together at all other times.
I would suggest exploring the nuance surrounding the "render unto Caesar" passage. Remember, the Pharisees wanted to discredit Jesus. If He said, "Jews owe taxes to Rome," He would discredit Himself. If He said, "Do not pay taxes to Rome," He would have been crucified, or at least imprisoned, then and there. It was a lose-lose trick question. Instead, He asked for a coin.
Why would the Pharisees have a Roman denarius issued primarily to pay Roman soldiers and officials?
What was the image and inscription on it, beyond just the face of the emperor?
What is really Caesar's, especially in context of Jewish people familiar with the Psalms, the law, and the prophets?
There was a reason the crowd was amazed. He elegantly disarmed their trap in a way they could not counter.
We are commanded to live at peace with the world so far as is possible for us, but neither this passage nor Romans 13 really confers legitimacy on man's governments.
I am quite familiar with the passage in question ... and also with Scripture to know that the Lord never, ever contradicts Himself. Submission to government, even bad ones with the noted exceptions, is all throughout Scripture. It is said clearly in Scripture that God puts every ruler in place -- roundabout Daniel 4 -- meaning He picks them ALL, even if He picks them to bring judgment to a people. Therefore, since it is His choice about all government, He has sufficient legitimacy to order our general obedience. The Lord told Jeremiah to tell His people in captivity to make the best of things: they were going to be under Babylonian government for some time, and then Persian after that, but we saw where the line was because of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Other than that, they were to obey the prevailing laws. This is written out in the Old Testament even before Romans 13.
The Lord never, ever contradicts Himself. He is sufficiently legitimate in picking who shall be in power -- per Romans 13, while knowing where the line is -- that it ought to be enough for us to live as His ambassadors, not His revolutionaries or anarchists. He simply has not, not in the entire of Scripture from Genesis 8 through the last human government mentioned in Rev. 20, left it to us to do all that. When He is ready to end any human government, He does so. Not in Scripture will we find God's people in mass in the forefront of those overthrows. Joseph and Daniel were fantastic prime ministers in the kingdoms they were brought into as slaves -- they used their presence to be a light and a presence for God in the highest echelons of government. The children of Israel left Egypt without overthrowing a deeply unjust government ... Pharoah's resistance to God set that up without them lifting a finger. Coming down to the time of the Judges: there are some occasions in which some judges gave personal combat as rulers of the people to the oppressors and conquerors of the land -- but they were acting as rulers defending their people. In the time of the prophets, prophets had the job of warning many bad kings, but NEVER raised a hand against a ruler. Daniel observed this rule even to the point of the lion's den.
In the New Testament, the Lord, to accomplish the salvation of all mankind, dealt with the most corrupt collusion of governments ever against Him -- and did not tell His disciples to rebel against any of it. Peter tried. The Lord told him, "Put your sword up." It did not matter that the governments here were very bad: the good will of His Father was enough for him.
Remember what we are here to do. See Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8. The Lord lived under far worse government than we do. That is big nuance for "Render unto Caesar." If you would like some even bigger nuance, I recommend to you Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars if you have not read it. Tiberius was quite the character. We would not like to have to finance him at all. The Lord told His people to go on and obey the laws around taxation. He also knew that Titus would do later when they rebelled. Big nuance: Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, if you have not read it. But there is a story about how the Christians in Jerusalem walked away from all that ... in the same way the Lord told Jeremiah to tell the people: "You are going to be under the rule of the Babylonians: GO SUBMIT YOURSELF, and you will live." Human governments generally aren't good ... but God sets them all up and puts them down when He is ready, and in the meantime we submit to Him by doing all that government requires EXCEPT when government contradicts Him.