So you say you want a Revolution, what about Romans 13?

By Steve Williams

Many Christians believe that the first section of Romans 13 – verses 1-7 — forbids any form of resistance to government… even when it clearly goes tyrannical. If one analyzes this passage of the Bible carefully, however, as The USA’s founding fathers did, we can see that Paul was speaking in generalities in this passage, and that unlimited tolerance of government tyranny is a highly wooden, hyper-literalistic reading of his words which is impossible to reconcile with other words of Paul, the words of Christ, other parts of The Bible, and Israel’s history. Ironically, many people who hold this position (like John MacArthur) probably wouldn’t even be here if their ancestors held to that reading, as these ancestors would have been slaughtered centuries ago for not resisting tyrants of old!

Revolution Romans 13

First, let’s look at the actual verses in question:

“13 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. 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.”

Now having seen the section in its entirety, let’s examine the implications of taking each verse in the hyperliteral way some understand it, verse by verse:

“13 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.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and other mass murderers were “established by God” (clashing starkly with the principle that God does no evil), and that men like Niemoller and Bonhoeffer – who resisted them – were sinners for doing so.

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

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that every genocidal action taken by a tyrant is tantamount to “an ordinance of God”, which again, clashes brutally with the principle that God does no wrong.

“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;”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict a tremendous amount of human experience over the millennia, wherein millions of people who were minding their own business were slaughtered by/tormented by their own governments. Exhibit A: the executions of Christians – including the author Paul – by the Roman government.

“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.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict millennia of human experience wherein governments have not only winked at evil behavior of “the connected”, but helped to get the immoral goals of these guilty parties accomplished.

“5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict the fact that some rulers (such as the USSR, communist China and North Korea) have structured their entire governments on the premise that God does not exist.

“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.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that we’d need to withhold things like “honor” from many governments and rulers, because it would require schizophrenia to deduce that they are due such things in the face of their evil actions.

In terms of Israel’s historical record and The Book of Revelations, an absolute literal interpretation: clashes with (among other verses) Joshua 2: 3-21, Daniel 3: 16-18, Daniel 6: 10-13, Acts 4: 18-20, Revelations 14: 9-11 (in the non-violent category), and with (in the more violent category) Joshua 6: 16-21, Judges 3: 14-26, Judges 4: 10-24, Judges 7: 19-25, Judges 16: 28-30, and The Maccabean revolt, which precipitated Chanukkah (“The Festival of Lights”). In The Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BC, the Jews violently revolted against the Seleucid Empire. Inasmuch as Jesus, Paul, and virtually every other significant New Testament Jew celebrated this holiday, what does that tell us? Were they celebrating “the ends” and disregarding “the means”?!

Or consider the events of Judges 3: 14-26, in which Ehud kicks off a violent revolt against the Moabites with a quite graphic assassination of King Eglon. Obviously we have some significant Bible contradictions on our hands if Romans 13 mandates that revolution is ALWAYS forbidden. It is a generally well-accepted principle of hermeneutics that if two verses seem to clash on a strictly literal reading, another reading in which the two are harmonized is probably lurking in the background. What if Paul was writing in generalities, and didn’t mean to be covering EVERY situation? Well, it seems to me that that understanding of it has far greater explanatory scope and power than the former.

The USA’s Founding Fathers (whom I have argued had Christianity in mind) engaged in some interesting discussion on this topic, and obviously didn’t hold to the MacArthur view. They put up with a ton of abuse for many years prior to The Revolution, and tried a variety of non-violent ways to end the abuse, but I think where they finally drew the line and said “enough!” was roughly correct.

In 1775, Rev. Jacob Duché argued from the Bible in favor of the American position in Philadelphia, explaining:

“Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be ‘a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well’ [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to ‘stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free?!’ [Galatians 5:1] The Apostle enjoins us to ‘submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,’ but surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be ‘for the Lord’s sake,’ for ‘He loveth righteousness and His countenance beholds the things that are just.’” [The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, July 7, 1775. Before the First Battalion of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, Jr., 1775), pp. 13-14.].

Of course The British accused the states of “anarchy”, but our Founders obviously disagreed with that characterization. In fact, while the states had been generally following the laws and rules they were under as colonies of Britain, The British had been systematically breaking their own laws and rules at the expense of the states for well over a decade. The “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” which are listed in our Declaration of Independence were not “light and transient” events which one might encounter (and suffer out of pragmatism) with any human institution. They were very serious offenses (including rape and murder), committed on a continuing basis, and attempts to resolve the issues “through the system” had resulted in nothing but insults and further abuses. England had racked up a great deal of debt during the French and Indian War (which ended in 1763), had significant numbers of (often abusive) troops on the continent, and had begun attempting to systematically extract as much revenue, goods and accommodations as it could milk from the colonists, and were apparently feeling very little restraint due to the massive distance of the states from the motherland. Under the legal theory of “Lex Rex” (“The Law is King”; ie: even Kings are subject to it) – which basically had been operative in England since at least 1688 (and arguably since the Magna Carta of 1215) – it was King George and his enforcers which were in a state of anarchy!

John Quincy Adams later described the situation as follows:

“[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.” (emphasis added). [An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28.].

As Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson (also a church musician and choir leader) put it:

“Q. It has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion?

  1. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.
  2. Is this the case of the Americans?
  3. Far otherwise.”

The truth is that The Revolutionary War was a defensive one. Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775. “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” is a memorable command from this time, and reflects the prevailing mindset among our forefathers. Yet, having been fired upon without having broken any law, the Americans believed they had a Biblical right to self-defense. In fact, the Rev. Peter Powers, in a famous sermon he preached in front of the Vermont Legislature in 1778, specifically noted that America had “taken up arms in its own defense” – that she had not initiated the conflict but was only defending herself after being attacked. [The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government; A Sermon Preached before the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, on the Day of Their First Election, March 12, 1778 at Windsor (Newbury-Port: Printed by John Michael, 1778).]

As Founding Father James Wilson (a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) affirmed:

“The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man.”

So I think we can conclude that The USA’s founders viewed the key words in Romans 13: 1-7 to be “governing authorities”; with a particular emphasis on what it means to be “governing”. When the powers-that-be diverge from following their own laws and begin systematically pillaging and otherwise abusing their subjects, it’s hard to see how that remains a case of “governing”, rather than “ravaging” people vulnerable to them under the color of authority.

In fact, let’s consider how Romans 13 describes what “governing” should look like:

“…For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil… Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for it is a minister of God to you for good… for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

The British failed miserably at fulfilling these descriptions in the years leading up to The Revolution. In contrast, consider the fact that The USA’s Founders could have easily put into place a monarchy or oligarchy once the Revolutionary War was won and accreted power to themselves, but instead pored over the successes and failures of various forms of government throughout history, racked their brains as to how sustainable, checked and balanced self-governance could be arranged, and prayerfully cemented it into place.

One objection I’ve heard from “pacifists” (which I should hit before I wrap this up) is that during Paul’s time, evil Romans like Nero were in power, and since Paul didn’t endorse revolution against Rome, that must show that revolution against tyranny of that kind (or less), is not warranted. I think this objection overlooks a key principle: BE REALISTIC!

There was no way a ragtag handful of revolutionaries were going to be able to mount a viable revolution against the most powerful empire the world had ever seen at that point in time. Jesus Himself affirmed this principle in Luke 14:

31 Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.”

Side note: A reminder that Jesus endorsed self-defense in Luke 22 is worthwhile:

“36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.”

Lest one asserts this verse is taken out of context, please read Tim Stratton’s article, Love Thy Neighbor & Pack Thy Heat.” 

In many (probably most) cases, the notion of revolution will simply be infeasible, as the powers-that-be will simply be too strong for a revolt. As Jefferson alluded to in The Declaration of Independence, actions like this are not to be taken “for light and transient causes”, and it’s better “to suffer, while evils are sufferable” than to engage in revolt, willy-nilly. In other cases, the notion will be dodgy because the populace will be morally questionable themselves. In the case of The USA’s Founders, however, they had the arms, numbers, terrain, intelligence, and most importantly, the morality, to pull it off and form something better. As a result, the most Christian country in the history of the world came into being, and inhabitants of the earth have been blessed in myriad ways as a result.

Yes, I’m well aware that we’ve drifted from the original blueprint. Anything administered by human beings will have its imperfections, but inasmuch as The USA has resembled Paul’s description of “government” substantially better than The British Empire (and most other governing entities that have existed), “the proof is in the pudding”.


I’ll be happy to open-mindedly consider the possibility I’ve gotten something wrong on this and consider a case for another viewpoint if one is presented to me, but I am highly doubtful that a more literal view of Romans 13 can survive its own self-refutation.

Original Blog Source:


Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
16 replies
  1. Susan says:

    There seems to always be a Baylonian element in the world. It followed the Hebrews in the Old Testament. It followed the early Christians and possibly upset Christian community and it followed the Reformation from Europe over to America’s shores. The U.S. was only made possible because people were fleeing the old European system. The Pilgrims even thought they were the New Israelites setting off for the Wilderness but freemasonry got into the mix and that is not compatible with Christian ideas. So there was a deception of some kind. The populace was Christian but many of the founding fathers were freemasons. So there are Masonic architecture abd emblems all over Washington D.C. and even on the dollar bill. The Washington monument is an obelisk.

    Judgment is a complicated subject but God does send judgment to encourage righteousness in the Earth.

    The Chrisians are suppose to be the peacemakers. We’re the ambassadors from heaven bringing the ministry of reconciliation from heaven to earth. How much that will involve refereeing the world is difficult to say because 1 Cor. 5 says we’re suppose to judge believers not unbelievers.

    Romans 13 partly could be Paul dealing with the reality of having to bring Christians to maturity in the midst of an evil world filled with persecution. When you challenge the authorities too much you could draw the wrong kind of attention to yourself and end up looking more like a troublemaker to the world than a peacemaker.

  2. S. Hall says:

    A more simple and consistent explanation is…..Rebellion is never against evil….that is called godliness….Rebellion is against godliness. The passage presumes the godliness of a government instituted by God, and encourages Christians to not rebel….Christians are ALWAYS to stand with God and against evil. When government becomes evil (not like the government mentioned in Romans 13, i.e. “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.” An evil and immoral government is NOT what is being discussed here, and Paul would never ask Christians to obey evil, support evil, or advance evil in any fashion. …IMHO.

    • Susan says:

      Yeah but we’re suppose to exert enough godly self separate to separate from being under evil influences, too. Some times you can’t beat evil but you can separate yourself from it because you have more control of yourself than you have influence over other people.

      Unless you are out of your mind or allowing sin to rule you you should be able to separate yourself from evil. That is being “set apart” which is holy.

      There is a limit to how much you can influence evil people and if you try too hard it can lead to violence and God hates violence.

      We don’t judge unbelievers. God judges them. Our job is to love people and set the example.

      Not everyone is a recipient of God’s revelation but God’s people keep over acknowledging reason as if it outranks a revelation from God but it doesn’t.
      The most rational are the people that allowed the Spirit to inform their intellects because loving all people all the time in spite of their evil is God’s position but it is the hardest walk to perform….so you know if you even come close that you are living a godly life.

      Didn’t the Puritans separate themselves and seek the New World to get away from the world’s political control? They deliberatley and intentionally set themselves apart from their evil worldly rulers. They could have stayed and shed blood like a lot of people who pretend to be spiritual do.

      But God chose Solomon not David to build His temple because Solomon was a man of peace and David was a man of war.

      A Christian’s weapons aren’t carnal they are spiritual. Sometimes Christians have to withdraw from the world and regroup. Look at home schooling. People decided to take their kids back from unspiritual and unscriptural influences.

      Yes the world certainly likes to spit on Christians like Bryan did in this thread but Christians don’t always have a lot of options. Like Trump. Was he the best option? Maybe not but our options were limited and we had to pick between the lesser of two evils.

      Christians should have strived to have more Christian communities and less church organization substituting for it but we let the world try and absorb us too much.

      This is really the cultural time when we should be minding this verse:

      17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

      The Christians got yoked with the world early on and that yoking has given us trouble ever since. The popes managed to successfully yoke Christianity to politics until Wycliffe came along.

      But our kingdom is not of this world. Too bad we have so much trouble putting into practice what the Bible teaches.

      Christians should have established their own communities like they did in Paul’s times. Instead we got overly scattered but all is not lost. Christ will be here soon to straighten things out.

      • Bryan says:

        Enjoy playing the persecuted martyr don’t you. I used to do that in Mormonism. Sorry but most Evangelical Christians voted for Trump with gusto and enthusiasm. Check out Dr. Robert Jeffress and Falwell jr.

        • Susan says:

          Not really. I have just seen a lot of cheap shots taken by some at Christians with little to no reflection. I know very little about Jeffress and Falwell. People frequently vote for people based on issues. I know an atheist who voted for Trump and I believe her reason was the economy. You should be careful not to over stereotype.

          Why are Christians all up in politics? Because we’re affected, too. If we had managed to maintain our separation from the world more then we wouldn’t have to monitor the world’s behavior through politics.

          A lot of people are evil and government doesn’t do anything cheap. They have government contractors that will charge the governemnt $200 for a $12 wrench because the taxpayers are paying the money and who are really checking the contracts? The only people really keeping the government in line is independent watchdog groups.

          So you want big government, huh? Well big government is expensive and starts to make more and more laws that encroach on your personal decisions and freedom and they can’t even guarantee to put moral people over the whole system and you think it is ok to just give all your economic and personal power to someone at the top who could have gotten there through a corrupt voting system?

          Nobody reads heart motives but God. All the people have to go on is a record of the candidates’ views, statements and lies and politicians lie all the time.

          Obama ran on a change platform ticket but his first major act in the White House was to endorse the Bush plan to prop up the bankers. He didn’t even come up with his own plan so what really changed. Only the names…the labels in office. They let banks foreclose on the homes of millions of Americans while the government propped up the banking system and the banking system isn’t even controlled by the U.S. government. The Federal Reserve is controlled by a cartel of international bankers.

          They even have a quote by the Former Head of the Federal Reserve saying the government doesn’t control the Fed and he’s right an international cartel controls them. The power to create money was given in the Constitution to Congress but the International Bankers managed to get the government to pass that power over to them. Roosevelt took us off the gold standard and the Fed can raise and lower interest rates. Prior to the Fed being in power the value of a pair of pants 2000 years ago was the same value in 1900 then a group of people got their hands on the interest rate levers and your dollar has less buying power now than it had historically for almost 2,000 years. The U.S. people fought hard since it’s inception not to have a national bank but were fooled under Wilson in 1917 into letting the Federal Reserve be established.

          Our wonderful government also allows private interest lobbying. Which should have been outlawed at the outset of the establishment of the democracy.

          You should be more worried about government abuses than who is in office and want less government because at the rate we are going we could become so insolvent that the country becomes inoperable.

          The U.S. should have crashed a long time ago so at this point you should be thanking God that the whole economy hasn’t crashed.

          Most people know the answer to economic woes isn’t to spend more. You can’t keep on spending what you don’t have.

          Debt has destroyed a lot of countries. It destroyed Haiti and created economic woes there long before any earthquake ever hit. It hurt Germany so badly that it helped lead to WWII.

          Study history and stop falling for stereotypes. “Absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

          Everybody always knew politicians were corrupt so why would you put everything in the hands of a few corrupt people?

          There is a sliding scale of control by government. We need to be somewhere in the middle or else you end up in communism where there are government controlled apartments, inferior cars and they tell you how many kids you can have in your family like in China where they have a problem with selective gender abortion.

          • Bryan says:

            Whoa…that was like an Alex Jones anti-governmentdiatribe. I don’t want a large government just an efficient one. I know why fundamentalist Christians are “all up in government “. It’s called Dominion Theology. I really don’t mind Episcopalian or United Methodist political leaders but people like Grand Ayatollah Ted Cruz scare me.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “A lot of people are evil and government doesn’t do anything cheap”
            This is false. Government does health care cheaper than the free market. Americans pay more for their healthcare than Europeans and get worse care because they have to pay the extra layer of insurance. The ‘cost of a wrench’ problem is worse when it all gets charged to an insurer. The UK’s NHS by contrast can use its huge buying power to get companies to compete to offer the the cheapest prices for wrenches (or wheelchairs, false legs etc).
            “We need to be somewhere in the middle or else you end up in communism”
            You have communism at one end and absolute anarchy with people starving in the street at the other. Most countries in North America, the antipodes and Europe are in the large middle ground. A step to the left is as much a move away from anarchy and ‘the law of the jungle’ as it is a step towards communism.
            “Most people know the answer to economic woes isn’t to spend more. You can’t keep on spending what you don’t have”
            It depends what the money is being spent on. Building up infrastructure is generally money well spent, especially if poor transport links are stopping the economy from growing. While too much debt is generally bad, a country isn’t the same as a household.
            “It hurt Germany so badly that it helped lead to WWII”
            What killed German was hyperinflation caused by too much printing of money.
            “Everybody always knew politicians were corrupt so why would you put everything in the hands of a few corrupt people?”
            Hence the importance of a healthy inquiring press to hold them to account. The problem now is the willingness of Trump supporters to denounce the press and seek to hobble it.

        • Susan says:

          If I were a former Mormon which I am not I would do a cross comparison between Mormonism and Christianity before accepting any answers the world supplies. I did spend some time among different groups claiming to be Christian and they don’t all accept the same things.

          God is the revealer of truth. The world mostly generates confusion.

          But if you can locate a site that debunks false cults you might see the doctrinal errors of Mormonism.

          God’s Word
          Galatians 1:6-8King James Version (KJV)

          6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

          7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

          8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

          Wasn’t an angel Moroni responsible for Mormonism?

          Why was the founder of Mormonism consulting an angel when Paul said not to?

          I would definitely do that doctrinal cross comparison to learn more facts if I were you.

          The Reformation was caused by a doctrinal comparison wasn’t it? Some people got the Bible out and checked what God who is the revealer of truth said against what Catholicism was saying and Catholicism had a strong grip over a big portion of the Christian world and still does til this day.

          If you want to replace what God says with some other rationalization by men then that is up to you but were you thorough? Did you really seek to know and hear God’s side of the story?

          I would pray on it and do the side by side doctrinal comparison.

          That way at least you are attempting to establish the truth by hearing more sides to this.

          • Bryan says:

            I have done a side by side comparison. The final answer? “My special invisible bearded white god is real. Your special invisible bearded white god is fake.”

  3. Bryan says:

    When 81% of you bowed down to the arch ammoral p*ssy grabbing adultery loving individual in the White House you have lost all authority to publish articles like this. Do you really believe the wlrld can’t see your hypocrisy?!?

  4. Susan says:

    I am not going to be right on every detail as things change over time. But the media isn’t that independent. You have to seek out the independent news sources.

    I saw a video showing CNN misreporting the news once. The CNN reporter was reporting on Scud missile attacks pretending to be on location in the Middle East while all the while he was back in the U.S.

    There are clubs where the heads of banking, media, oil, military industry, etc all meet together and people network. That is how people get ahead. By networking.

    The news is cherrypicked by somebody. If it wasn’t why do we mostly hear about the terrible things in this world? Sensationalism and ratings increase viewership which increases revenue.

    Most business aren’t run without serving some profit motives. A few might but it is dubious that the majors networks are. Television is too expensive.

    • Andy Ryan says:

      Sure, the media isn’t independent, but the press plays a very important role in holding politicians to account, something all politicians recognise, good and bad. That’s why the first thing tyrants do is attack the press, as a prelude to trying to hobble it. Trump has been engaged in the former for quite some time now – he knows that when he gets caught it will be at the hands of the press.
      “I saw a video showing CNN misreporting the news once”
      No one claims the press is perfect. Generally they admit mistakes or error though.

  5. Susan says:

    Yes, but some people are reporting that the journalists willing to expose the most corruption are getting killed around the world today. If that is so then somebody is silencing them.

    There are many voices and opinions in this world and each person can have his own personal worldview.

    But a Christian builds their worldview along with God’s as given in the Bible. I used to love history and I used to study politics but over time gave studying them up because I was building my worldviews to align with God’s as best I can and prefer serving His purposes to the world’s.

    Sin is evident in the world if you study people and history. If you deny sin is existent in people then you are denying your senses which are what God gave us to determine reality. I observe people and all people regardless of the label sin.

    Sin is defined as missing God’s mark.

    Try imagining the world today devoid of a Ten Commandments permanently recorded for humanity. Would we have anywhere near the social progress without interpresonal boundaries being maintained through rules?

    We might not have made it even as far as the Dark Ages without the Ten Commandments.

    Some people network to go around or break the law. Some people know the technicalities of U.S. law today so well that they can drive a truck over the Spirit of the Law which is equity and justice for everyone to get exactly what they want which frequently is personal profit.

    Do you know what messes the “little guy” up. He is so busy observing the letter of the law that he only knows a technicality occurred and many times he will accept the burden for the technicality when the technicality never should have been charged in the first place. He doesn’t even understand the purpose or spirit of the law has been violated which is the whole purpose for laying down the law in the first place. That’s why we have human rights disputes. Some people don’t stand around and allow a technicality to stand when they realize the Spirit of the Law has been violated.

  6. Susan says:

    Steve Williams you would learn a lot about the counterfeit religion that the world likes to sow beside Christians and sometimes steer Christians the wrong way if you watch:

    “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers 2010” by Christian film producer Christian Pinto on youtube.

  7. Paul says:

    I believe the big and deliberate mistake with Romans 13 interpretations is to shoe-horn in the state as a legitimate authority – as if it were anywhere ordained by God as such. Mentally insert truly legitimate authorities of home, business, church, private property, judicial etc. and the passage makes much more sense – it even upholds the right to keep and bear arms. This is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere in the Bible, the word “powers” (exousia) does not mean government at all but is a much more general word for authority. Then there are the words translated “taxes” and “customs” in verse 6. But Jesus used the same word for customs (“telos”) when he said “It is Finished” And the word for tribute or taxes is “phoros” which was originally not a tax but a voluntary contribution and in the Papyrii was also used for house rental payment obligations to landlords. So we are in fact to fulfill our obligations to all in proper authority – and that does not mean government. Obeying government would thus come under the headings of prudence and sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel – not moral obligation. Please see:

  8. Jordan says:

    I read in Nabeel Qureshi’s book “No God But One: Allah or Jesus” that there are two words for “sword” that are used in the Greek new testament: one that means more of a tool (like a machete — “machaira”) and one that means weapon (“rhomphaia”). The word used in Luke 22:36 is the former version. This would mean that Jesus meant that the disciples should buy supplies for survival, not explicitly self-defense. (P. 107)


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *