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?

[marco]

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.

To be fair, Paul was active during Nero's reign. Nero, Caligula and Tiberius were repressive emperors and would certainly have punished writings that opposed them in any way. Studious and just men like Seneca were ordered to commit suicide - so the times were dangerous.
It is not an outlandish proposition to suppose Paul was careful in what he wrote. He had to be.

[Willum]

My 2 cents is that Rome, with a 600 year history of re-writing religion to suit their needs, did not write the book of Romans for Christianity, rather it wrote Romans for the Romans.

Also there is the bit about paying ROMAN taxes that leaves the sane man suspicious.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

My 2 cents is that Rome, with a 600 year history of re-writing religion to suit their needs, did not write the book of Romans for Christianity, rather it wrote Romans for the Romans.

So Paul was either faking being a Christian or someone else wrote Romans?

Also there is the bit about paying ROMAN taxes that leaves the sane man suspicious.

Paul doesn't say to pay taxes to Rome, but to the authorities. If we take what I'm saying seriously, Paul identifies the true, God-established authorities as those who serve others (again, see verse 13:4). If that is Rome, then great, pay taxes to Rome, because those taxes will be used for the good of others. But the archetype of this authority is Jesus. Not the typical Roman emperor...

Again, we would be absolutely wrong to see Romans 13 as putting a divine foundation under all "powers-that-be."

Having true authority is not the same thing as having power.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 30 by DanieltheDragon]

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.

Let's be clear:

Paul is absolutely saying that God establishes authority. God, or God's Word, is the foundation of any true authority in this world.

But he is NOT saying that all who claim to be authorities (or who hold power) are God-established. There is a difference between having true authority and taking and holding power and claiming the so-called authority that comes from it.

13:4 is precise on this: true authority is those who use their power to serve the good of others. These are the authorities that God establishes and that we should pay taxes to.

Rome and Nazi Germany do not fit in that class. (For the most part - I'm sure Rome at least did some good throughout its long history.)

See Ephesians 6:12 where these false authorities are separated out quite clearly:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

[Willum]

[Replying to post 33 by theophile]

No, Paul, if he existed, said one thing, and when the Romans established the Church of Rome, they wrote him up as saying something else.

Like what happens when your favorite book becomes a movie.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 35 by Willum]

No, Paul, if he existed, said one thing, and when the Romans established the Church of Rome, they wrote him up as saying something else.

Paul would have had a significant following at this time then, even if he was long gone. Enough to warrant a pro-Roman redaction of his writings by the Roman authorities...

And his followers, I can only imagine, would have been incredibly upset by this event, and would have vehemently protested. And while this protest would have been suppressed by Rome, I find it hard to believe it could be fully eradicated.

Not to mention the fact that Paul's writings would have circulated by this point, and would not been localized just to Rome... i.e., hard to control something like a letter spread across early churches, provinces and peoples, like any post let loose on the internet these days...

So is there any historical evidence that this great redaction occurred? Any pre-redaction letters uncovered in some hidden grove? Graffiti in the Christian catacombs? ...

[DanieltheDragon]

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.

To be fair, Paul was active during Nero's reign. Nero, Caligula and Tiberius were repressive emperors and would certainly have punished writings that opposed them in any way. Studious and just men like Seneca were ordered to commit suicide - so the times were dangerous.
It is not an outlandish proposition to suppose Paul was careful in what he wrote. He had to be.

Seneca was ordered to commit suicide because of the assassination plot against Nero not his works. While Seneca might not have been apart of the plot and likely wasn't. Nero was a crazy person and justly paranoid about people trying to kill him. Seneca got caught up with those accusations.

Seneca's works also survived. So if we are being fair theophile said Paul was trying to preserve the message not his life. Not to mention many religious folks who believe Paul was martyred. So if we have a martyr complex religious person writing the fundamental pillars of a religion he would not be afraid to write the truth but would welcome it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 34 by theophile]

13:4 is precise on this: true authority is those who use their power to serve the good of others. These are the authorities that God establishes and that we should pay taxes to.

Rome and Nazi Germany do not fit in that class. (For the most part - I'm sure Rome at least did some good throughout its long history.)

Hmmm I think I heard something on this subject already..

My contention, however, is that the evil God does is always for good. So we absolutely need to look at the "happy conclusion" of this evil, and why God called for Isaac's life in the first place. We need to see it within a broader narrative.

This doesn't nullify the evil of the act, but it does provide a context where evil can and does find a place. Where things like war, violence, etc., become necessary...

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

The great-grand-children of Paul's following were dead at that time.
History, please, history!

Yes, we have evidence. None of Paul's or post-Paul works survive Rome's expansion of the religion.
The original works (presumably) went in, and Roman-Church works came out.

Something happened to the originals... I wonder what? Historia thinks God took them into heaven. I think they served as kindling on those cold Roman nights.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 39 by Willum]

The great-grand-children of Paul's following were dead at that time.
History, please, history!

Yes, we have evidence. None of Paul's or post-Paul works survive Rome's expansion of the religion.
The original works (presumably) went in, and Roman-Church works came out.

Something happened to the originals... I wonder what? Historia thinks God took them into heaven. I think they served as kindling on those cold Roman nights

Lack of evidence is not evidence. I would say the fact that none of "Paul's or post-Paul works survive" is not because they were redacted into pro-Roman texts, and the originals were completely obliterated from the historical record, but because the texts we have today are precisely what they purport to be: Paul's.

I'm not denying history, but you seem to be. Take the next great "purge" of Christian texts, e.g,. competing gospels, Gnosticism, etc. What history shows us is that remnants will be found. The suppressed will return.

My argument is that the authorities would be unable to completely clear the history. The fact that you can find no evidence of this suppressed Paul is in fact evidence that this event you speak of never happened.