Romans 13:1 and Nazi Germany

[Justin108]

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."


A few comments/questions regarding Romans 13:1

1) My click-bait title. So I am to understand that every single government authority, no matter how corrupt or immoral, was established by God? Including Nazi Germany?

2) Would making people establish governments not violate free will? Was it not the free-will decisions of founding members to establish these parties?

3) Does Romans 13:1 not sound suspiciously like a means of using religion to control the masses? Does it not seem like Paul is using Christianity to pacify Christians into submission to the Roman government?

[Justin108]

I cannot spell this out any clearer.

Well then you might like considering the option that you stop trying.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placedin their relative positions by God.

Yes, I've read the verse thank you. I have told you what we understand the verse to mean and I think I understand what you believe. You believer the verse means God "placed" and "established" governments by his active participation in their formation, I believe he "placed and established" by his refraining from stopping their formation.

You have your view, so do I. We will just have to agree to disagree.

JW

So I took a look at one of our earlier debates and found something quite ironic...

I'm not dealing with "interpretation" I'm dealing with definition. What is offered as dictionary definitions of the verb is not disputable.

You're not the most consistent person, are you?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

We interpre the word "placed" to mean allowed.

Why?

Because logically, if God is omnipotent, anything that exists in any position is there because he allows it.


Critical thinking,

JW

In other words...God is ultimately responsible for it, or 'to blame' for it. Now I'm gonna go to pages 2 and 3 of this thread and see if this point has already been raised to JW and see what JW says about it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Jehovah's Witnesses do not feel obliged to accept your understanding of Paul's words, we do not accept that your interpretation is the ultimate and absolute truth, as absurd as this notion may seem to you. We have a different interpretation of the passage but I recognize entirely as you said yourself , that you "don't see" what it could possibly be.

No offense or infaction of forum rules intended,

JW


Further reading;
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017322#h=16

[marco]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Jehovah's Witnesses do not feel obliged to accept your understanding of Paul's words, we do not accept that your interpretation is the ultimate and absolute truth, as absurd as this notion may seem to you.

I should be uncommonly astounded if some religious group turned to me for divine inspiration. But you jest with poor Marco, surely.

In your supplement to Scripture I see the following:

"Fittingly, Jehovahs Witnesses willingly render honor to public servants, even as it may be expected and as may be customary in the land. We cooperate with them as they perform their duties. Of course, our honor and support have reasonable, Scriptural limits. We cannot go to the point of disobeying God or violating our Christian neutrality."

Though Paul tells us to obey, JWs obey as far as their own interpretation of matters allows them. When they don't feel like complying with Paul, they have a fitting excuse in that his advice contradicts Scripture. Odd, really.

We have a different interpretation of the passage ...............

Of course you do and I am pleased you concede that it is merely an INTERPRETATION. Our Muslim brothers have different interpretations of what Moses and others have said. Like JWs they believe their take on things is correct. Logic tells us that a proposition and its antithesis cannot both be true. Where is truth, then? Instead of looking for arcane interpretations that fit in with our preconceived ideas, it might be wise to take things as they are. We may still be wrong, but at least we are not stretching things.

[JehovahsWitness]

Not divine, I wouldn't say that, but I think we can both agree (correct me if I am wrong) that YOU would never admit to expressing an opinion about a bible text or posting what you see, or believe to be the correct interpretation thereof; rather when YOU post it is the definite and unquestionable meaning as intended in the mind of the author.

Of course you do and I am pleased you concede that it is merely an INTERPRETATION.

Yes, looking back over the thread I see I have been amis and failed to concede publically that it was merely an interpreation.

I will share the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of the verses.

Each one can interpret scripture as they see fit, I'm just sharing ours.

We have a different interpretation of the passage

As the posts above illustrate, I was not clear enough from the beginning that it was an interpretaion and I would like to correct my mistake now. When I said in my very first post that I was sharing the JWs interpretation, what I meant (and didn't make clear) was that it was an interpreation. Evidently I gave the impression that it was not an interpretation and it took your posts to make me concede to the fact that it was. Thank you for drawing my attention to this and I will try to do better in future.

Yes, I absolutely. I concede without hesitation that it is my interpretation. Again I publically and sincerely apologise that I implied otherwise.

Regards,


JW

[marco]

..... rather when YOU post it is the definite and unquestionable meaning as intended in the mind of the author.

I think you have misunderstood. I am happy to interpret and accept that my interpretation is just that - my idea. On the other hand, JWs believe that what they accept is truly the word of God when, as you freely admit, it is just an interpretation of what they've read. My interpretation and theirs are subject to human fallibility. So let us stop asserting that we follow the Word of God - we follow our interpretations.

Yes, I absolutely. I concede without hesitation that it is my interpretation. Again I publically and sincerely apologise that I implied otherwise.

This comes commendably close to admitting that the JW position is based on human guesswork, not directly on Scripture as is sometimes asserted. And guesswork, as we know, is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. I admire your honesty.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

1) My click-bait title. So I am to understand that every single government authority, no matter how corrupt or immoral, was established by God? Including Nazi Germany?

No, that would be a misunderstanding.

2) Would making people establish governments not violate free will? Was it not the free-will decisions of founding members to establish these parties?

Yes, I suppose it would if that's what happened.

3) Does Romans 13:1 not sound suspiciously like a means of using religion to control the masses? Does it not seem like Paul is using Christianity to pacify Christians into submission to the Roman government?

It sure does look that way. But looks can be deceiving.

I've made this point so many times, but nobody wants to respond for whatever reason.

But here it is again: We need to understand that Paul wrote in a way that would survive the Roman censors. We all know what censorship means, so let's respect that the Romans pretty much invented it, or at least coined the term.

"The censor was an officer in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances"

So. Let's take that seriously and put ourselves in Paul's shoes now.

Imagine you are trying to convert an empire. Do you think the most effective way to do that is to declare some new, Jewish king?

Absolutely not! Paul tells us himself that he cloaks his words depending who he's talking to. That means we need to look for subtle clues as to what he's really saying, between the lines so to speak that are designed to pass the censors...

Here the trick is Romans 13:4 where he defines who the true authorities are: "For the one in authority is Gods servant for your good."

In other words, you will know the one in authority because they work for your good (and not just their own). That is Jesus, the true king and authority that Paul is declaring and that we owe homage to...

(He is the king who proves his kingship through service to others.)

It is definitely not the Roman empire or Nazi Germany or any other self serving "power" in this world that Paul is referring to here...

TRUE AUTHORITY IS NOT EQUAL TO POWER.

And we would be foolish to think that it is.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 27 by theophile]

But here it is again: We need to understand that Paul wrote in a way that would survive the Roman censors. We all know what censorship means, so let's respect that the Romans pretty much invented it, or at least coined the term.

"The censor was an officer in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances"

I see you have taken a cursory glance at what a censor is. You missed this part from the Wikipedia article though.

"The censorship continued in existence for 421 years, from 443 BC to 22 BC"

There were no censors during Paul's era.... Now while not much is known about free speech in the Roman Empire what is known is that critics and satirists of the Emperor did exist during this time period. The first book burnings or active denouncement of written speech did not actually occur until after Christianity.

So you are flat out wrong to say Paul wrote in such a way to avoid Christian censors. There is no interpretation or semantic to correct that.

[theophile]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

I see you have taken a cursory glance at what a censor is. You missed this part from the Wikipedia article though.

"The censorship continued in existence for 421 years, from 443 BC to 22 BC"

Keep reading. Sure, the official role ended, but emperors took it on themselves, or appointed officials with a different name but with the same basic role & responsibilities.

But even so:

Do you honestly think that Roman authorities - whatever they were called - would have looked kindly on the declaration of a king in a Roman province?

This is not rocket science but common sense. Of course they wouldn't!

Paul was subverting the empire through writings cloaked in empire-friendly terms. Eventually it caught up with him - he was arrested and eventually executed - but this just begs the question: was it because he was giving divine foundation to the Roman empire, or because he was subverting it?

The latter is the only explanation - or please give credence to the alternative. Thus we have to look real close to see what he's saying... And recognize that he is not giving divine foundation to every power that exists...

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 29 by theophile]

It seems like you are making assumptions. Roman Emperors only took on that role or appointed those during a census. There was not a secret police prosecuting speech during this time. Nor were there specific laws preventing such speech.

If you have to say the "authorities or whatever they were called" as part and parcel to your argument, I would say you don't have one. Why would Paul need to subvert Rome to protect his writings when Roman culture at that time did not destroy writings?

All you have is your opinion, which while noted as part of your belief is not evidence to support it.

Your claim that Paul was being subversive to protect his writings from Roman authorities is without merit. What evidence do you have that Rome would destroy Christian writings during this period?

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Usually the simplest answers are best, even if hardest to discern.

Let's see

Paul meant God establishes all authorities

Or

In an effort to thwart Roman censorship that may or may not have existed Paul wrote that God established all authorities so that he could hide a message that Jesus is king and we should only listen to Jesus.

Basically he meant what he said or there was an elaborate consiparcy to thwart Christian writings of Jesus by the Romans. Yet for some reason the Roman Empire failed to censor other Christian groups. It seems the only time the Romans were successful at censorship was when The Christians were in charge and wanted to suppress other Christian groups....