Ultimately any "blame" lays on humanity. Our greed, our desire for someone else to fix our problems, has led us to this point where our government is not representative and is completely corrupt. Voting now is a clown show, we needed people to step up and say "no, this is not the direction we want to go" long, long, long ago. But problems develop gradually and aren't noticed at first. The water has slowly come to a boil and most are still asleep not noticing.
Does God commanding us to obey give the one we are to obey the right to command us to do any and every thing? The conventional reply is that they're supposed to command only what God commands and if they command something evil, "We are to obey God rather than man."
Minor problem: That's not what the passage says. "Rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid" (Romans 13:3–4). That is a blanket statement about what rulers do; it's not a job description telling what they are supposed to do. Given the record of the powers that be, ordained of God, one wonders who supposes they are going to reward the good and punish the evil. Does God suppose it?
Let's look at ordination for a moment. There is a politician in our area, a black woman, a Christian active in the pro-life movement. She was conceived in rape. If her name has been written in the Lamb's book of life since before the foundation of the world, at the very least the rape and her conception were no surprise to God. He certainly did not do what was needed to prevent it, and we Calvinists would say that that rape was somehow ordained—God decided beforehand that he would work good through it (Rom 8:28)—though he is not to be blamed for it. And we would say that the rape was a sin.
Every authority I know of came to power through bloodshed of some sort, either directly or by inheritance. Lyndon Johnson is the clearest example in my lifetime, and Herod is the clearest example in the New Testament. Whether the bloodshed was justified or not is another question. We can be reasonably sure that the emperor Paul was talking about either killed off his rivals or inherited the job from someone who did. So "those [authorities] that exist are put in place by God" includes the idea that God puts those authorities in place by enabling them to kill off their rivals. Does God raise up / establish them? Yes. Do men establish them? Yes. Do they commit murder as part of the process? Yes. Is the God who establishes rulers good? Yes. Is the murder men commit in the process therefore justified? I think not (Rom 5:7–8; 9:19).
"True functional anarchy will never exist." Sure it will, depending on your definition of anarchy. Anarchy exists by definition whenever people consciously or unconsciously obey Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:26. God originally designed Israel to be an anarchy: "There was no king in Israel," and the land "had rest [presumably from war, possibly from famine and pestilence]" for forty years three times (Jdg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28) and eighty years once (Jdg 3:30), a record unmatched during the monarchy (nor in our nation). God told Samuel that by asking for a king they were rejecting him (1 Sam 8:7), so clearly God had been willing to provide whatever they needed to make the anarchy work (1 Cor 10:13).
The Israelites thought the problem was their anarchy, not their idolatry, so they decided to fix it in 1 Samuel 8 (see Deut 17). God worked a bunch of miracles to show that Saul was his choice. Did he suppose that Saul was going to read the law every day and administer righteousness, fulfilling the description in Deuteronomy? Or was he giving Israel over to the desires of their hearts (Rom 1:24)? They insisted that they wanted to sin by becoming slaves (1 Sam 8:17, 19) to men, not to God (1 Cor 7:21–23).
So I contend that God's command to be subject to the authorities says nothing about the moral content of their commands. "We have to obey God rather than men." How do we know when that's what we're doing? Read Romans 13:8–10. Once they command us to murder, steal, defraud, or slander our neighbors, they have overstepped their bounds, and we do not have to obey.
Consider the logical end of your position: God has established two classes of people, the ruler and the ruled, the masters and the slaves. The former can take what he deems expedient from those who cannot defend themselves against him and do as he sees fit with it, and the ruled slaves cannot even speak against his actions without speaking against what God has ordained (Acts 23:5; Rom 13:2). I don't need to list all the commands to defend the poor and defenseless that go out the window with that view.
Legitimate authority is established by just, peaceful, voluntary means. It respects life, property, trust, and reputation. The state is the antithesis of all that.
You wrote: “Perhaps it is because of the people who are voted in, which by extension, lays the fault on the voters themselves.” As a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are right, and the Bible makes that clear in 1st Samuel 8.
The bottom line is if the Bible is true, which I claim, then doing things, such as asking for a government, that the Bible makes clear is a rejection of the Lord, then the blame lies with the voter as they are asking for a government.
But we can’t discuss that, especially in the institutional church, as it is far more fun to complain about the state then it is to trust in the Lord.
John, you've shared a similar response to other pieces. I agree with you regarding 1 Sam. 8, but only in that it applies to biblical Israel. Unlike biblical Israel who chose a human king over God, America is not (and never was) a theocracy. Only Israel was ever a true theocracy. America could not reject God as King because God was never "king" over America. Thus, this principle does not apply directly to America.
If we want to look at a biblical principle that does apply, Romans 13:1 is more appropriate: "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."
That said, in America, people misuse that because, in America, the ultimate authority (aside from God) is the Constitution, not the government itself. If the government is in violation of the Constitution, it is, as our founding fathers wrote, our right and our duty to stand opposed. I wrote a longer piece on that some time back. You can find it here:
You use the term “biblical Israel” with which you seem to imply only the descendants of Jacob which is only one of the meanings of the word “Israel” in the Bible. See “Why the follower of Christ should NOT endorse the country of Israel” (http://Kozlowski.org/2023-10-25+1) where I go into an examination of the word “Israel”. I wholly disagree that it applies to an ethnic group, but rather in context the elect.
Using the term “theocracy” is a distraction as 1Sam8 applies to all people. If an atheist votes, or an American, the result is a rejection of the Lord and the costs listed in 1Sam8 will apply to him as well. Rejecting the Lord, for the Christian or others, is like rejecting gravity. It is a bit hard to do, and the costs of a violation can be significant.
The typical go-to verse of Romans 13 is highly misused and I contend you just did as well. It is a command to submit to authorities placed over you, but is it NOT a command to setup an authority. I highly recommend the 4 part series “No One Is Exempt: Romans 13:1–7 in Context” found at: https://quillpigchronicles.blogspot.com/2023/01/no-one-is-exempt-romans-1317-in-context.html. Also remember Romans 13 is more than 7 verses. The focus is not the state but love!
When you state “ultimate authority (aside from God)” you are allowing for another authority, which is to violate Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.”
But there is a fundamental that is found in Genesis 1, a chapter the novice can easily find. In verse 28 the Lord gives His first two commands to man. Where the Lord commands man to take dominion it is over the earth, plants, and animals, but nowhere in the Bible does the Lord command man to have authority over another man. This can be seen in Matthew 20:25 and the Barmen Declaration of the 1930s which I went into detail on with: “Barmen Declaration viewed in 2023 - Where do you stand?” (http://Kozlowski.org/2023-10-09).
If you claim to follow Christ, then follow Christ. His commands are right in front of you. Don’t take the idea of the separation of church and state as your authority. If the Lord is your authority, then obey Him. If the government gives you license or a command to steal or kill, to what authority do you yield? If you are allowed to vote, to what authority do you yield?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're getting at. We must obey God rather than men (as did the apostles). But obedience to the authorities, when such does not conflict with obedience to God, is a biblically sound principle espoused even by Jesus Himself. That is not making government our "god;" it is simply recognizing authority permitted/ordained/established by God.
Yes, He is King of kings - we are not. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 51:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Since we agree the Jesus is “King of kings”, let Him be king alone. He does not need Madison.
Madison’s writing is making the case that fallen man needs a government. So when do we see long periods of peace? That would be in the Book of Judges when “there was no king” and people obeyed the Lord. When they people went astray, not because of bad government, tragedy followed.
Again, the follower of Christ is called to proclaim the Lord and His ways, such as in Deuteronomy 6 to our own kids. To impose a government is not commanded by the Lord, nor is there license to do so.
I must again disagree with you. Paul did not set out to set up a new theocracy; neither did John, Peter, or Matthew. They accepted the authorities that existed and worked within that frame. While you may wish to cast blame upon the founding fathers for creating a human-led government, all they did was replace the monarchy over them with representatives who (were supposed to) hold far less authority. America never had opportunity to be a theocracy. The best we could do was vote for men who follow God. We also now are in a position where we are under that government the framers created. So, like Jesus and the apostles, we don't seek to come out from under it, but instead, as Jesus exhorted, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
Other than the descendants of Jacob, no nation has ever been under direct leadership, guided by those in direct audible contact with, God. You cannot then take 1 Sam 8 as applying to all people. "All people" never had the benefit of God's chosen people (of whom I am speaking of Jacob's descendants - not the Middle Eastern state of Israel, and not the elect).
I understand the overall context of Romans 13, but I believe it is you who is avoiding the direct application.
As for "ultimate authority," God is the ultimate authority, and He has put others over us (our government), however, He also saw fit to allow the framers to create something unique - our Constitution - that is intended to restrain our representatives and protect our rights. I am not in any way violating the commandment to "have no other gods" because I worship neither government nor the Constitution, nor do I set either up as God. I recognize them as authorities for the United States of America, authorities that fall under God, as was Caesar, who was a horrific tyrant and under whom Paul continued to operate - he did not seek to supplant Caesar with God.
We live in a fallen world, and until Christ returns, we will be under human authorities appointed or ordained by God. This is something we must accept, and to think we could do otherwise is, at best, misguided.
Agreed, “Paul did not set out to set up a new theocracy”, nor did I claim such. You state “They accepted the authorities that existed”, which is exactly what I stated Romans 13 commands.
Monarchy or democracy is still a human authority which is in direct violation of what Jesus stated in Matthew 20 as described. When you write “The best we could do was vote for men who follow God” it is like stating that we won’t steal $100 but only $50, it is still theft. Voting is still placing a human authority over you which Christ more than frowns upon. We read in Galatians 5:1 “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” The yoke is religious institutions and the state. The Lord granted me freedom, so I will not vote to say no to Him.
Your “no nation has ever been under direct leadership” idea conflicts with Romans 1:20 “So they are without excuse.”
When you use “God's chosen people (of whom I am speaking of Jacob's descendants” you are arguing from Zionism, not the Bible. God’s “chosen” people, by definition, are His “elect”. It is not Jacob’s descendants or biological.
“Avoiding the direct application”? How?
You state God “has put others over us”. How does that then give us authority to vote in violation of the Lord’s ultimate authority? Setting up some idea of a limited government is simply saying I want limited sin, but it is still sin. You state you do not worship the state, but will go into the hallowed voting booth to give authority to the state. You state Paul “did not seek to supplant Caesar with God”, but voting is to replace one representative with another, so you are not following Paul.
Yes, consistent with Romans 13:1-7, we are to submit to human authorities, but when we vote or participate in the government, we are actively working in opposition to the Lord’s commands, such as Genesis 1, 1st Samuel 8, Matthew 20, and so much more.
Take an obvious example. How much effort does the Christian community put into to fighting the state’s definition of marriage? The follower of Christ has no need to address the state’s definition, but simply live by the Lord’s definition. We proclaim the Lord’s command, but we do not impose them. Political activity and voting is imposing your values on others. It is taking authority over another man, what the nations do, not the follower of Christ.
Brother, you are misinterpreting Scripture. Let's look at a couple. First, Matthew 20:
"And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.'"
This has nothing to do with secular government - this is talking about how we are to operate within the Church (I capitalize "Church" because it refers to the body of Christ, not a particular denomination or religious organization). We are to treat one another with humility, in love, and to serve one another.
As for Galatians, the slavery from which Christ set us free is the Mosaic Law and sin. The Galatians were duped into trying to live by the Mosaic Law in order to obtain their salvation, when they had been freed from that law by their faith in Christ. As those no longer under law, Christ has freed us ("the truth shall set you free") from our slavery to sin which He described in John 8:34. Again, this has naught to do with government, religious institutions (except those that would impose rules in order to receive salvation) or voting.
In Romans 1:20, they are "without excuse" for rejecting God in general because, "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." Again, that has nothing to do with government or the authorities over us.
It seems what you are getting at is rejection of government in general, refusal to participate, despite that privilege being granted us. Though we as believers must always strive to follow Him, why would we not participate in our own governance if by doing so we can further God's kingdom?
I agree that we proclaim God's word, we don't impose it, but even our founding fathers believed our government should be guided by it. If I understand you clearly, however, the Christian is to reject all manner of involvement with government? How then do you justify Paul using the benefit of Roman law to spread the gospel? Of his appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen?
No, we do not want government forcing Christianity on the people, but we don't want government forcing immorality upon us either. I see nothing wrong or unbiblical (I think you are misusing Scripture) in participating in our own governance, especially since voting (in America) is not intended toassert our authority over others, but rather to impart our authority for self-governance to another, that they may govern over us.
So, you as the final authority, are stating that Matthew 20 “It is not this way among you” is limited in scope. Actually that seems consistent with your other writings in that it seems the Bible only has to do with the institutional church, but not in other areas of our lives. That is utter nonsense.
Show one verse where the Lord gives man the authority over another man.
So I’m taking it from your interpretation of Galatians that “you shall not murder” is no longer applicable and we need a state to make a new law for the same? Consider Romans 7:7 “What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."” We are free from the law in the sense it is not a barrier to salvation, but the law of God gives us commands on how to love. The act of murder is not love. I do not need man’s laws to make this clear.
Your statement on Romans 1:20 seems to be saying it is a general statement, but does not specifically apply to government. That simply does not follow.
There is no “privilege being granted us” to rule over others, which is what government does. We don’t use government to further God’s kingdom, as we are not his intermediary. We are called to appeal to others, not rule them.
Please be specific on how you view “Paul using the benefit of Roman law to spread the gospel”.
Paul’s appeal to Caesar in Acts 25 in a case where the state was imposing on him and he submitted to the laws of the state. He was being threatened with death by the system and appealed to the system to follow their own rules. He did not attempt to be a part of or change the system.
Are you serious when you write “voting (in America) is not intended to assert our authority over others”? The voter is giving power to the state which imposes taxes and laws on others. This is the direct intent.
Ultimately any "blame" lays on humanity. Our greed, our desire for someone else to fix our problems, has led us to this point where our government is not representative and is completely corrupt. Voting now is a clown show, we needed people to step up and say "no, this is not the direction we want to go" long, long, long ago. But problems develop gradually and aren't noticed at first. The water has slowly come to a boil and most are still asleep not noticing.
Does God commanding us to obey give the one we are to obey the right to command us to do any and every thing? The conventional reply is that they're supposed to command only what God commands and if they command something evil, "We are to obey God rather than man."
Minor problem: That's not what the passage says. "Rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid" (Romans 13:3–4). That is a blanket statement about what rulers do; it's not a job description telling what they are supposed to do. Given the record of the powers that be, ordained of God, one wonders who supposes they are going to reward the good and punish the evil. Does God suppose it?
Let's look at ordination for a moment. There is a politician in our area, a black woman, a Christian active in the pro-life movement. She was conceived in rape. If her name has been written in the Lamb's book of life since before the foundation of the world, at the very least the rape and her conception were no surprise to God. He certainly did not do what was needed to prevent it, and we Calvinists would say that that rape was somehow ordained—God decided beforehand that he would work good through it (Rom 8:28)—though he is not to be blamed for it. And we would say that the rape was a sin.
Every authority I know of came to power through bloodshed of some sort, either directly or by inheritance. Lyndon Johnson is the clearest example in my lifetime, and Herod is the clearest example in the New Testament. Whether the bloodshed was justified or not is another question. We can be reasonably sure that the emperor Paul was talking about either killed off his rivals or inherited the job from someone who did. So "those [authorities] that exist are put in place by God" includes the idea that God puts those authorities in place by enabling them to kill off their rivals. Does God raise up / establish them? Yes. Do men establish them? Yes. Do they commit murder as part of the process? Yes. Is the God who establishes rulers good? Yes. Is the murder men commit in the process therefore justified? I think not (Rom 5:7–8; 9:19).
"True functional anarchy will never exist." Sure it will, depending on your definition of anarchy. Anarchy exists by definition whenever people consciously or unconsciously obey Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:26. God originally designed Israel to be an anarchy: "There was no king in Israel," and the land "had rest [presumably from war, possibly from famine and pestilence]" for forty years three times (Jdg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28) and eighty years once (Jdg 3:30), a record unmatched during the monarchy (nor in our nation). God told Samuel that by asking for a king they were rejecting him (1 Sam 8:7), so clearly God had been willing to provide whatever they needed to make the anarchy work (1 Cor 10:13).
The Israelites thought the problem was their anarchy, not their idolatry, so they decided to fix it in 1 Samuel 8 (see Deut 17). God worked a bunch of miracles to show that Saul was his choice. Did he suppose that Saul was going to read the law every day and administer righteousness, fulfilling the description in Deuteronomy? Or was he giving Israel over to the desires of their hearts (Rom 1:24)? They insisted that they wanted to sin by becoming slaves (1 Sam 8:17, 19) to men, not to God (1 Cor 7:21–23).
So I contend that God's command to be subject to the authorities says nothing about the moral content of their commands. "We have to obey God rather than men." How do we know when that's what we're doing? Read Romans 13:8–10. Once they command us to murder, steal, defraud, or slander our neighbors, they have overstepped their bounds, and we do not have to obey.
Consider the logical end of your position: God has established two classes of people, the ruler and the ruled, the masters and the slaves. The former can take what he deems expedient from those who cannot defend themselves against him and do as he sees fit with it, and the ruled slaves cannot even speak against his actions without speaking against what God has ordained (Acts 23:5; Rom 13:2). I don't need to list all the commands to defend the poor and defenseless that go out the window with that view.
Legitimate authority is established by just, peaceful, voluntary means. It respects life, property, trust, and reputation. The state is the antithesis of all that.
You wrote: “Perhaps it is because of the people who are voted in, which by extension, lays the fault on the voters themselves.” As a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are right, and the Bible makes that clear in 1st Samuel 8.
The bottom line is if the Bible is true, which I claim, then doing things, such as asking for a government, that the Bible makes clear is a rejection of the Lord, then the blame lies with the voter as they are asking for a government.
But we can’t discuss that, especially in the institutional church, as it is far more fun to complain about the state then it is to trust in the Lord.
John, you've shared a similar response to other pieces. I agree with you regarding 1 Sam. 8, but only in that it applies to biblical Israel. Unlike biblical Israel who chose a human king over God, America is not (and never was) a theocracy. Only Israel was ever a true theocracy. America could not reject God as King because God was never "king" over America. Thus, this principle does not apply directly to America.
If we want to look at a biblical principle that does apply, Romans 13:1 is more appropriate: "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."
That said, in America, people misuse that because, in America, the ultimate authority (aside from God) is the Constitution, not the government itself. If the government is in violation of the Constitution, it is, as our founding fathers wrote, our right and our duty to stand opposed. I wrote a longer piece on that some time back. You can find it here:
https://curetsky.substack.com/p/obey-the-authorities
Chad,
You use the term “biblical Israel” with which you seem to imply only the descendants of Jacob which is only one of the meanings of the word “Israel” in the Bible. See “Why the follower of Christ should NOT endorse the country of Israel” (http://Kozlowski.org/2023-10-25+1) where I go into an examination of the word “Israel”. I wholly disagree that it applies to an ethnic group, but rather in context the elect.
Using the term “theocracy” is a distraction as 1Sam8 applies to all people. If an atheist votes, or an American, the result is a rejection of the Lord and the costs listed in 1Sam8 will apply to him as well. Rejecting the Lord, for the Christian or others, is like rejecting gravity. It is a bit hard to do, and the costs of a violation can be significant.
The typical go-to verse of Romans 13 is highly misused and I contend you just did as well. It is a command to submit to authorities placed over you, but is it NOT a command to setup an authority. I highly recommend the 4 part series “No One Is Exempt: Romans 13:1–7 in Context” found at: https://quillpigchronicles.blogspot.com/2023/01/no-one-is-exempt-romans-1317-in-context.html. Also remember Romans 13 is more than 7 verses. The focus is not the state but love!
When you state “ultimate authority (aside from God)” you are allowing for another authority, which is to violate Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.”
But there is a fundamental that is found in Genesis 1, a chapter the novice can easily find. In verse 28 the Lord gives His first two commands to man. Where the Lord commands man to take dominion it is over the earth, plants, and animals, but nowhere in the Bible does the Lord command man to have authority over another man. This can be seen in Matthew 20:25 and the Barmen Declaration of the 1930s which I went into detail on with: “Barmen Declaration viewed in 2023 - Where do you stand?” (http://Kozlowski.org/2023-10-09).
If you claim to follow Christ, then follow Christ. His commands are right in front of you. Don’t take the idea of the separation of church and state as your authority. If the Lord is your authority, then obey Him. If the government gives you license or a command to steal or kill, to what authority do you yield? If you are allowed to vote, to what authority do you yield?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're getting at. We must obey God rather than men (as did the apostles). But obedience to the authorities, when such does not conflict with obedience to God, is a biblically sound principle espoused even by Jesus Himself. That is not making government our "god;" it is simply recognizing authority permitted/ordained/established by God.
To be clear, voting is in direct disobedience to God as the mentioned Genesis 1, 1st Samuel 8, Matthew 20 state unambiguously.
Jesus paid the tax, but did not work to change or participate in the state government. Consistent with Roman 13:1-7 and the rest of the chapter.
After all, He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. He does not also need to be a member of the city council.
Yes, He is King of kings - we are not. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 51:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Since we agree the Jesus is “King of kings”, let Him be king alone. He does not need Madison.
Madison’s writing is making the case that fallen man needs a government. So when do we see long periods of peace? That would be in the Book of Judges when “there was no king” and people obeyed the Lord. When they people went astray, not because of bad government, tragedy followed.
Again, the follower of Christ is called to proclaim the Lord and His ways, such as in Deuteronomy 6 to our own kids. To impose a government is not commanded by the Lord, nor is there license to do so.
I must again disagree with you. Paul did not set out to set up a new theocracy; neither did John, Peter, or Matthew. They accepted the authorities that existed and worked within that frame. While you may wish to cast blame upon the founding fathers for creating a human-led government, all they did was replace the monarchy over them with representatives who (were supposed to) hold far less authority. America never had opportunity to be a theocracy. The best we could do was vote for men who follow God. We also now are in a position where we are under that government the framers created. So, like Jesus and the apostles, we don't seek to come out from under it, but instead, as Jesus exhorted, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
Other than the descendants of Jacob, no nation has ever been under direct leadership, guided by those in direct audible contact with, God. You cannot then take 1 Sam 8 as applying to all people. "All people" never had the benefit of God's chosen people (of whom I am speaking of Jacob's descendants - not the Middle Eastern state of Israel, and not the elect).
I understand the overall context of Romans 13, but I believe it is you who is avoiding the direct application.
As for "ultimate authority," God is the ultimate authority, and He has put others over us (our government), however, He also saw fit to allow the framers to create something unique - our Constitution - that is intended to restrain our representatives and protect our rights. I am not in any way violating the commandment to "have no other gods" because I worship neither government nor the Constitution, nor do I set either up as God. I recognize them as authorities for the United States of America, authorities that fall under God, as was Caesar, who was a horrific tyrant and under whom Paul continued to operate - he did not seek to supplant Caesar with God.
We live in a fallen world, and until Christ returns, we will be under human authorities appointed or ordained by God. This is something we must accept, and to think we could do otherwise is, at best, misguided.
Agreed, “Paul did not set out to set up a new theocracy”, nor did I claim such. You state “They accepted the authorities that existed”, which is exactly what I stated Romans 13 commands.
Monarchy or democracy is still a human authority which is in direct violation of what Jesus stated in Matthew 20 as described. When you write “The best we could do was vote for men who follow God” it is like stating that we won’t steal $100 but only $50, it is still theft. Voting is still placing a human authority over you which Christ more than frowns upon. We read in Galatians 5:1 “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” The yoke is religious institutions and the state. The Lord granted me freedom, so I will not vote to say no to Him.
Your “no nation has ever been under direct leadership” idea conflicts with Romans 1:20 “So they are without excuse.”
When you use “God's chosen people (of whom I am speaking of Jacob's descendants” you are arguing from Zionism, not the Bible. God’s “chosen” people, by definition, are His “elect”. It is not Jacob’s descendants or biological.
“Avoiding the direct application”? How?
You state God “has put others over us”. How does that then give us authority to vote in violation of the Lord’s ultimate authority? Setting up some idea of a limited government is simply saying I want limited sin, but it is still sin. You state you do not worship the state, but will go into the hallowed voting booth to give authority to the state. You state Paul “did not seek to supplant Caesar with God”, but voting is to replace one representative with another, so you are not following Paul.
Yes, consistent with Romans 13:1-7, we are to submit to human authorities, but when we vote or participate in the government, we are actively working in opposition to the Lord’s commands, such as Genesis 1, 1st Samuel 8, Matthew 20, and so much more.
Take an obvious example. How much effort does the Christian community put into to fighting the state’s definition of marriage? The follower of Christ has no need to address the state’s definition, but simply live by the Lord’s definition. We proclaim the Lord’s command, but we do not impose them. Political activity and voting is imposing your values on others. It is taking authority over another man, what the nations do, not the follower of Christ.
Brother, you are misinterpreting Scripture. Let's look at a couple. First, Matthew 20:
"And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.'"
This has nothing to do with secular government - this is talking about how we are to operate within the Church (I capitalize "Church" because it refers to the body of Christ, not a particular denomination or religious organization). We are to treat one another with humility, in love, and to serve one another.
As for Galatians, the slavery from which Christ set us free is the Mosaic Law and sin. The Galatians were duped into trying to live by the Mosaic Law in order to obtain their salvation, when they had been freed from that law by their faith in Christ. As those no longer under law, Christ has freed us ("the truth shall set you free") from our slavery to sin which He described in John 8:34. Again, this has naught to do with government, religious institutions (except those that would impose rules in order to receive salvation) or voting.
In Romans 1:20, they are "without excuse" for rejecting God in general because, "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." Again, that has nothing to do with government or the authorities over us.
It seems what you are getting at is rejection of government in general, refusal to participate, despite that privilege being granted us. Though we as believers must always strive to follow Him, why would we not participate in our own governance if by doing so we can further God's kingdom?
I agree that we proclaim God's word, we don't impose it, but even our founding fathers believed our government should be guided by it. If I understand you clearly, however, the Christian is to reject all manner of involvement with government? How then do you justify Paul using the benefit of Roman law to spread the gospel? Of his appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen?
No, we do not want government forcing Christianity on the people, but we don't want government forcing immorality upon us either. I see nothing wrong or unbiblical (I think you are misusing Scripture) in participating in our own governance, especially since voting (in America) is not intended toassert our authority over others, but rather to impart our authority for self-governance to another, that they may govern over us.
So, you as the final authority, are stating that Matthew 20 “It is not this way among you” is limited in scope. Actually that seems consistent with your other writings in that it seems the Bible only has to do with the institutional church, but not in other areas of our lives. That is utter nonsense.
Show one verse where the Lord gives man the authority over another man.
So I’m taking it from your interpretation of Galatians that “you shall not murder” is no longer applicable and we need a state to make a new law for the same? Consider Romans 7:7 “What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."” We are free from the law in the sense it is not a barrier to salvation, but the law of God gives us commands on how to love. The act of murder is not love. I do not need man’s laws to make this clear.
Your statement on Romans 1:20 seems to be saying it is a general statement, but does not specifically apply to government. That simply does not follow.
There is no “privilege being granted us” to rule over others, which is what government does. We don’t use government to further God’s kingdom, as we are not his intermediary. We are called to appeal to others, not rule them.
Please be specific on how you view “Paul using the benefit of Roman law to spread the gospel”.
Paul’s appeal to Caesar in Acts 25 in a case where the state was imposing on him and he submitted to the laws of the state. He was being threatened with death by the system and appealed to the system to follow their own rules. He did not attempt to be a part of or change the system.
Are you serious when you write “voting (in America) is not intended to assert our authority over others”? The voter is giving power to the state which imposes taxes and laws on others. This is the direct intent.