Romans 13:1 about submitting to authority

[SusanL]

A friend of mine (a Methodist) recently posted this on Facebook. I think that although she didn’t vote for President Obama, she was trying to say something about God putting him in authority. I’m having trouble with her interpretation of the scriptures. Can anyone clarify for me if God is saying that we have to obey all authority because it comes from him or is there another meaning to this verse? Thanks.

• ** Romans 13:1 " Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
  **

 

[Dave_Noonan]

A friend of mine (a Methodist) recently posted this on Facebook. I think that although she didn’t vote for President Obama, she was trying to say something about God putting him in authority. I’m having trouble with her interpretation of the scriptures. Can anyone clarify for me if God is saying that we have to obey all authority because it comes from him or is there another meaning to this verse? Thanks.

Seems pretty clear: “there is no authority except that which God has established.” Maybe I don’t understand the question.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is the footnote from the Aquinas Study Bible

13:1-2 By higher powers are meant person vested with political power for governing and ruling others, whether kings, princes, magistrates, etc. (Bishop John McEvilly) They have no power in spiritual matters, so that they do not receive the key of the heavenly kingdom. Their power is confined to temporal matters, and this too can only come to them from God, (Sum Theo 3.19.3.r2) But their laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good—either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory—or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him—or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.” Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Mat. 5:40,41: “If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.” Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, “we ought to obey God rather than man.” (St. Thomas Aquinas Sum Theo 2.96.4.a)

 

[bogeydogg]

A friend of mine (a Methodist) recently posted this on Facebook. I think that although she didn’t vote for President Obama, she was trying to say something about God putting him in authority. I’m having trouble with her interpretation of the scriptures. Can anyone clarify for me if God is saying that we have to obey all authority because it comes from him or is there another meaning to this verse? Thanks.

• ** Romans 13:1 " Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
  **

Yes the Bible says we are to obey Earthly authority because God has established it. What St Paul and St Peter meant by that was this does not include denying Christ by declaring Nero to be a God but it does include paying your taxes to Nero and living in peace under his rule.

So even if you personally dislike the Earthly authority you still have to obey and live peaceably as much as possible for the sake of the Gospel.

God Bless

 

[cornbread_r2]

I don’t know how Paul could write that passage without explaining how it relates to the fact that the Romans killed not only an innocent man but God himself. It’s almost like he completely forgot all about the crucifixion.

 

[JerryZ]

Yes the Bible says we are to obey Earthly authority because God has established it. What St Paul and St Peter meant by that was this does not include denying Christ by declaring Nero to be a God but it does include paying your taxes to Nero and living in peace under his rule.

So even if you personally dislike the Earthly authority you still have to obey and live peaceably as much as possible for the sake of the Gospel.

God Bless

However you cannot also follow any law that is against the law of God, for to do that it would put your soul at risk.
Look at it this way, you are a soldier and your commander in chief sends you to a village and orders you to murder all in the village women children old people and they are not armed just defenseless peasants. If you obbey that order you are guilty of “crimes against humanity” and can and will be tried for them and cannot pleade that you followed orders.
Same thing goes for the law of God, you cannot act against by obbeying the temporal ruler.

 

[bogeydogg]

However you cannot also follow any law that is against the law of God, for to do that it would put your soul at risk.
Look at it this way, you are a soldier and your commander in chief sends you to a village and orders you to murder all in the village women children old people and they are not armed just defenseless peasants. If you obbey that order you are guilty of “crimes against humanity” and can and will be tried for them and cannot pleade that you followed orders.
Same thing goes for the law of God, you cannot act against by obbeying the temporal ruler.

Exactly. You can’t deny Christ because an Earthly authority tells you to, but you must (as much as possible) live in peace.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

I don’t know how Paul could write that passage without explaining how it relates to the fact that the Romans killed not only an innocent man but God himself. It’s almost like he completely forgot all about the crucifixion.

Because the crucifixion was the will of Christ.

“No one takes my life from me I lay it down of my own accord an have the power to take it up again…”

Remember that?

And St Paul did not write it the Holy Spirit did. All authority, even wicked authority, rules by the will and purpose of God. Read Habakuk and there you will find a prophet astonished that God is using a wicked people (the Babylonians) to punish a less wicked people (Judah), but God tells the prophet that He will use them and in time will over throw them.

Remember there is a time to every purpose under Heaven and so even wicked rulers govern by the will of God, but even wicked rulers also restrain evil. A wicked man who maintains a semblance of government is still better than the chaos of anarchy. You need only see what has happened in our own time in Serbia or Rwanda or Somalia to see what happens when all governmental structure breaks down and the wickedness of men’s hearts is allowed to rule unchecked. The horrors of anarchy are far greater than the horrors of an unjust king. That is why St Paul reminds us that all rulers are given the sword to punish evil doers because government, even unjust government, restricts the wickedness that it is in man’s heart to do.

God Bless.

 

[DaveBj]

I don’t know how Paul could write that passage without explaining how it relates to the fact that the Romans killed not only an innocent man but God himself. It’s almost like he completely forgot all about the crucifixion.

Because the crucifixion was the will of Christ.

“No one takes my life from me I lay it down of my own accord an have the power to take it up again…”

Remember that?

And Jesus Himself told Pilate, after Pilate asked Him whether He knew that he had the power to put Him to death, “You have no power except what is given you from above.” (Paraphrased; I don’t have time to look it up right now, but you get the picture.)

 

[FaithInTheLord]

Come on guys it is code.

In the Gospel we are specifically told the authorities are the enemies.

He put that in there to keep bibles from being burned and to help with Christians trying to avoid prosecution (MY personal opinion which might be wrong).

It is true enough to be put in but come on…you just read the Gospel and acts - it is obvious you are not supposed to “submit” to authority.

 

[Bballer32]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Mt. 22:21)

i think if Christ said it, then I’m pretty sure we should obey it. Yes there is earthly authority under God, but we must always remember who our God is when under authority. If any of the laws of the authority contradict the Faith and the Gospels, then we do have a right not to follow them.

 

[FaithInTheLord]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Mt. 22:21)

i think if Christ said it, then I’m pretty sure we should obey it. Yes there is earthly authority under God, but we must always remember who our God is when under authority. If any of the laws of the authority contradict the Faith and the Gospels, then we do have a right not to follow them.

Go back and read that passage again.

He said that because they were trying to trap him. They wanted to make him look like an outlaw. All he said was give Caesar what is Caesars I don’t see how that means obey Caesar .

Then explain why we are repeatedly told not to trust authorities and we are told they are the enemy.

A JW quoted that to me the other day when we were discussing obedience to government. I gave the same response to you I gave to them.

 

[cornbread_r2]

And Jesus Himself told Pilate, after Pilate asked Him whether He knew that he had the power to put Him to death, “You have no power except what is given you from above.” (Paraphrased; I don’t have time to look it up right now, but you get the picture.)

That might explain how a Synoptic writer dealt with the issue, but doesn’t explain Paul’s writing.

*3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
*

I’m trying to imagine Paul writing those two verses and not coming to a point where he says to himself: “Hey, wait a tick…Jesus wasn’t evil and those Earthly rulers certainly didn’t praise him for all the good he did; they executed someone who did no evil. This is a contradiction I need to explain.” Indeed, can you imagine someone hearing this epistle and not saying to themselves: “What about Jesus?” It doesn’t seem from the text that that question ever crossed Paul’s mind.

 

[FaithInTheLord]

That might explain how a Synoptic writer dealt with the issue, but doesn’t explain Paul’s writing.

*3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
*

I’m trying to imagine Paul writing those two verses and not coming to a point where he says to himself: “Hey, wait a tick…Jesus wasn’t evil and those Earthly rulers certainly didn’t praise him for all the good he did; they executed someone who did no evil. This is a contradiction I need to explain.” Indeed, can you imagine someone hearing this epistle and not saying to themselves: “What about Jesus?” It doesn’t seem from the text that that question ever crossed Paul’s mind.

It was written in code!!

They used to burn scripture and kill Christians for opposing authority. That stuff was put in there to keep the powers of this earth happy.

It is plain to see (to me) but no one acknowledges it. Maybe I am wrong…

Either way - it can certainly be reconciled as true even though it was code.

It is true and code it is beautiful!!! We just got done reading the Gospel and Acts it is pretty obvious it is code when we read this.

 

[dandingo]

Thanks for posting this, as my cousin just posted a picture of Obama on a phone with a cocky smirk and the Roman 13 quote. My response was this:

“Would that also go for those that were governed under Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam or any dictator, for that matter? Or was it a sin that they revolted?”

 

[Justice_Mercy]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Mt. 22:21)

i think if Christ said it, then I’m pretty sure we should obey it. Yes there is earthly authority under God, but we must always remember who our God is when under authority. If any of the laws of the authority contradict the Faith and the Gospels, then we do have a right not to follow them.

Good points.

I think that as far as obeying wicked authorities goes,scripture teaches us to be at peace with others as much as it is possible on our end, but we are not to obey men when it sinning and/or denying Christ, etc. :

Romans 12: 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. 20 “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

(the caveat before the Romans 13 passage referred to in this thread)

and…

Acts 5: 27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

 

[bogeydogg]

It was written in code!!

They used to burn scripture and kill Christians for opposing authority. That stuff was put in there to keep the powers of this earth happy.

It is plain to see (to me) but no one acknowledges it. Maybe I am wrong…

Either way - it can certainly be reconciled as true even though it was code.

It is true and code it is beautiful!!! We just got done reading the Gospel and Acts it is pretty obvious it is code when we read this.

And your PROOF that this is code would be? Which Church Father? Which Council? Which teaching in the Catechism? Where in any single writing of the Magisterium would this teaching be?

And if this is code and does not mean what it says then how do we know that Christ when He said, “This is my Body given for you” did not actually mean “This is bread and you are all pretty much damned?”

You see you can’t pick out the parts of Scripture you want to ignore and create a new hermeneutic that explains them away because that same hermeneutic then needs to be applied to the rest of the Scripture. It is better to simply acknowledge plain language means what it says and the clear teaching of the Church for 2000 years supports the opinion of those who are saying we are to live in peace even if the government is unjust.

So you can complain about it being in code but that doesn’t make it so. You can even begin by saying it is your opinion and then restate it time and again as fact once offered as the opinion of one, but that still doesn’t make it so.

Those who received Christ’s teaching made no attempt at all to overthrow the government of Rome but instead lived in peace as best they could in spite of persecution and built the Church on the blood of the martyrs. They turned the other cheek, walked the extra mile and gave their cloak also’ they persevered until the end and were saved and were blessed because they were reviled and persecuted for Christ’s Name. And what does Hebrews say of these? The World is not worthy of them!

Or is that code also?

You see none of these teachings of Jesus were offered as code and they all fit together quite nicely. Of course you are free to argue that Jesus was wrong but then your Christianity first Catholic second stance would have led you to worship a false God altogether.

Just something to think about.

God Bless

 

[FaithInTheLord]

And your PROOF that this is code would be? Which Church Father? Which Council? Which teaching in the Catechism? Where in any single writing of the Magisterium would this teaching be?

And if this is code and does not mean what it says then how do we know that Christ when He said, “This is my Body given for you” did not actually mean “This is bread and you are all pretty much damned?”

You see you can’t pick out the parts of Scripture you want to ignore and create a new hermeneutic that explains them away because that same hermeneutic then needs to be applied to the rest of the Scripture. It is better to simply acknowledge plain language means what it says and the clear teaching of the Church for 2000 years supports the opinion of those who are saying we are to live in peace even if the government is unjust.

So you can complain about it being in code but that doesn’t make it so. You can even begin by saying it is your opinion and then restate it time and again as fact once offered as the opinion of one, but that still doesn’t make it so.

Those who received Christ’s teaching made no attempt at all to overthrow the government of Rome but instead lived in peace as best they could in spite of persecution and built the Church on the blood of the martyrs. They turned the other cheek, walked the extra mile and gave their cloak also’ they persevered until the end and were saved and were blessed because they were reviled and persecuted for Christ’s Name. And what does Hebrews say of these? The World is not worthy of them!

Or is that code also?

You see none of these teachings of Jesus were offered as code and they all fit together quite nicely. Of course you are free to argue that Jesus was wrong but then your Christianity first Catholic second stance would have led you to worship a false God altogether.

Just something to think about.

God Bless

You just twisted everything up just something to think about.

1st off - Jesus didn’t write that St. Paul did (I am pretty sure - either way it is after the Resurrection). The Holy Spirit did not lie and I did not say that.
2nd - We are told in very plain language that the authorities are the enemies. That doesn’t mean be an unjust aggressor…why would they overthrow anything?
Considering we are told and shown repeatedly not to trust authorities in this world - how could this not be code? This is plain language to me as well.
3rd -I never said any teaching of Jesus was wrong.
4th - Many of Jesus’s teachings are code (this is not Jesus’s teaching). This is also code. Read the Gospel - then Acts - then those passages from Romans.
5th - you are right - the CODE that is the entire scripture is all true and fits together quite nicely. It also happens to be the code I try to live by.

6 - you are right if I every said Jesus was wrong I would be worshiping a false God. Good thing I believed Him when He told me not to trust the powers of this world.
He said the authorities are the enemies.

I never said the passages are wrong. I said they are code. You are expected to be able to pick up on it.

Which is basically what you seem to have picked up on - The authorities are the enemies (in a coded sense of the word enemy) and we should love our “enemies”. Of course we actually only have one enemy in the end.

I will not even comment on what you said about the Eucharist. I wouldn’t even want thoughts like that running around in my head.