I cannot begin to properly thank you for this, Kaitlyn. I am SO GRATEFUL that God has called (& placed you) where you are, & in my lifetime, and that you choose to be such a good & faithful servant.
@@duncescotus2342 Nobody in the early church condoned emperor worship. Pay your taxes and otherwise obey the government, yes. Participate in paganism, no. Read up on Nicolaitan heresy.
@@pyrovania We have zero information in scripture on what the Nicolaitans were doing, only that Spirit didn't like it. It's quite possible your doctrine is Nicolaitan. You certainly don't mind jumping to extra-biblical conclusions. Why not let the text stand as is, and work your worldview around it instead of shoehorning the text into your own version of things? Our Founding Fathers practiced plenty of paganism. Our national anthem is taken from a pagan hymn to a god of drinking and sex, even homoerotic love. I am not condoning the government, only that it is godly to suffer for rightdoing, not wrongdoing.
Good video. I teach adult Sunday School, and it is often tempting to teach a lesson within the narrow framework of a single passage or a commonly perception. Yet when we make an effort to read/teach/apply within the context of the whole of scripture, we learn that God is not as dogmatic as we would like Him to be. It is our tendency toward dogmatism (and its opposite of situational, creative interpretation) that blindsides us. If we truly want the truth, it will set us free to follow God's path for our lives (Proverbs 3: 5 & 6).
Kaitlyn Schiess knocks it out of the park! Context is king and Spirit led nuance and wisdom engaging the whole of Scripture in community with other Christians is the way forward every time.
Context is not king. Jesus is King. And the Holy Spirit is here to take his place on earth. The words of Paul stand as the words of the Spirit. Shame on you and this Calvinist Jezebel. Pray once in a while.
LOVE this! And I'm sharing with many. We listen to the Holy Post a lot and always love Kaitlyn's take on issues. She is very well-spoken and a deep thinker. Thanks for putting this together. The illustrations are really well done and enhance the message.
Kaitlyn does such an amazing job at giving a measured & intelligent response. Where people on the left & right often take scripture out of context solely to promote their beliefs, she is correct saying that we need to discern where the Holy Spirit is leading us, put God above politics & do good political theology. . Looking forward to reading her book & please post more Kaitlyn segments!😁
Who takes it out of context? I know the conservative right does but the left for the most part can see right past its nonsensical retorick. Exodus and the splitting of an entire sea by the wave of a staff. That is already taking things way out of context. No God gave a made-up fella called Moses the power to block out the sun and create plagues. if you actually believe that version of events then you have a serious problem with how you perceive reality. One does not have to take the Bible's tall tales of context to see its insanity. So I ask you, how exactly do non-theists on the left take it out of context?
@@Ellecram Making scripture a lawful document would be like making Peter Pan a pilot's manual. I know I'm repeating my previous post but I believe the analogy is effing hilarious.
Kaitlyn, you and the rest of the HP are so refreshing. You’re balanced and sensitive. Plus your guests have joined my regular people to listen to. And just BTW, I’ a messianic Jew. Anything you’ve said about Jews or the Old Testament have been right on. Thanks!
Did she say they were disobedient? Because you're not allowed to pervert Romans 13 to justify your politics. If you think Paul thought Rome was righteous, think again. He suffered his martyrdom there.
"Why are American Christians so attached to it?" Because it is the ultimate easy/lazy condemnation of those that disagree with any given christian political stance. It also breeds self-righteousness and hypocrisy. These misinterpretations/misrepresentations are exactly why the separation of church and state is so very vital.
You’re wise beyond your years, young lady. Our allegiance it to God, not the political powers that be. I’m gonna obey God rather than man myself.👍🏽Looking forward to reading your book🙌🏽.
Can we please share this on our other sites so this can reach as many souls as possible? We need these truths to reach the most isolated corners of Louisiana yet blast through the daily grind of New York.
Two things: 1)The Holy Post does an excellent job creating these explainers and using graphics, colors, and language to accentuate what's being said. and 2) Kaitlyn is so brilliant. What a treasure she is for all of us.
Nuance, who'd of thunk it? Nice job on a well balanced and thoughtful discussion. I especially like that you didn't try and say, "if it's this, then do this, but if it's that, then do that." Trying to be specific on what's right on every circumstance is a losing battle. Better to say, "let's really think this out, read up, and talk to others, especially from diverse backgrounds."
Nuance, may ass. The devil is slithering subtle one. Nuance is for mysterious passages. St. Paul is clear as a bell. Do not bring shame upon the name of Jesus.
Our problem with interpretation goes way beyond the axiom concerning context--"A text taken out of context quickly becomes a pretext." The root problem was mentioned, and that is one of going through the Bible cafeteria style (I'd like some fried chicken, taters...but no thank you on the Brussel's Sprouts!). Chapter and verse breaks are relatively new (13th & 16th century, respectively) to the Bible, and we have MIS-used them, context oftentimes being the first item to suffer. All Scripture is inspired...and all Scripture is harmonious. God didn't somehow become a Christian between Malachi and Matthew--and neither did He become an American somewhere in the Epistles. Thanks from a 35 year veteran pulpit person for this video. I came to it thinking, "Here we go..." but after watching it twice I'm glad you posted it! There are a multitude of items in this country (US) that we need to stop. Bible Battling/Bickering Brethren is at the top of the list. The world can sniff it out rather quickly, and they laugh. Think I'll sub.
@@thomasdownard155 First, we've lived on the southern border for 15 years--two stones throw from the fence, w/o problems, NONE. Second, media has WAY overblown things just for ratings. I realise a country has a right to open/close/monitor their own borders, however, I'm repulsed by using human beings in their miserable plight (escaping countries just to stay alive) as a tug-o-war point between the parties. I also hate when Xians say things like, "Drive 'em down to the Rio Grande and throw them in the river!" Really!? Doesn't sound like Jesus Christ to me. If the majority want to deport, then do it legally AND humanely. Since many, many are working, paying taxes and SoSec, putting their kids through K-college, then find a path for citizenship. Those are doing way more than some Americans are!
I'm reminded of when Jesus says "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." We might not agree with the law of the land but the land has been given over to the authority of people. Though it is not God's way it is how those ruling people wish it to be. As believers we are part of an everlasting kingdom of God and do not need to obsess over winning our nations from those who rule them as much as our focus should be calling people to follow Jesus. Most people do not follow God and in a democracy we will be outvoted. But the laws that will exist as a result, the laws that non believers live by, are for them and we honour them by letting them enjoy their God given freedom to defy him. We will live with a different focus but needn't fight their life choices. The passage that involves "Turn the other cheek" speaks to this too. Jesus tells us not to resist the evil person. Lovingly tolerate it and let God deal with it.
And this is why the voting bloc commonly known as Evangelical (White Nationalist) Christians has decided they prefer Donald Trump because 'Jesus is too much of a pussy.'
Kaitlyn, thanks for your insightful thoughts on this. It isn't easy but we need to put in the time and effort to be faithful with the text and not "wield it as a weapon".
The foundational point being made in Romans and 1 Peter is that the heart of a Christian should not be moved primarily by a spirit of rebellion, but primarily by a spirit of submission. Those who refuse to submit to someone they can see is unable to submit to someone they can't see. The person who constantly moves in rebellion to all earthly authority doesn't know _how_ to submit to Jesus' "still, small voice." We have to practice submission as much as possible to the early king to know how to submit to the King of Kings.
Well done video! I've rarely heard Romans 13 addressed in a thoughtful way rather than acting as a blanket approval to government when it agrees with you. The idea that taxation is contributing to your community is nonsense, though. Taxation is a coercive extraction of wealth from the working class to the ruling class. Not to go into the fact that taxes are the fuel for endless wars, massive prison systems, ICE hunting and rounding up human beings like animals, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow ourselves to be extorted via taxation as Paul teaches, but taxation is definitely an evil.
Not to make biblical interpretation too wishy washy, but ive started treating many of these passages as guidelines or best practices to be applied in particular contexts, rather than absoute moral laws / directives that are universally applicable without regard to context. It doesnt help all the time, but it can help avoid some of the apparent contradictions.
@@tonyclif1 it's only a contradiction if you buy into the assumption that the Bible was intended to be treated as a legal text. I reject that assumption. The text should always be interpreted within its cultural context, not according to a hyperliteral construction that implicitly adopts our own cultural biases. And the ancient Jews would laugh at how we have treated texts, which were written to them, in our hyper legal framework.
@@jonathonpolk3592 ok, I kinda agree with some of what you say, but to me, you are still cherry picking what suits you. It's also interesting that your take is very different to what I anecdotely see as the view of the majority of Christians, who see the bible as the literal word of an all knowing god. And with the bible supposedly drafted over many centuries, the cultural context would have been constantly changing - look at our cultural change over the last decade, let alone the last century, or the last millenium. So which cultural period do you rely on exactly?
@@tonyclif1that's the only thing to do if you want to keep this book and remain moral, you have to pick and choose because the book itself is just something else.
Whatever method you would use to judge which portion of the bible and when to apply it means you're not using the bible itself to decide, now why not completely leave the bible and use that method for your life because it would appear whatever that method is, it is better than the bible. .
Kaitlyn, as a fan (who attended the first HP Live show), I want to encourage you to keep making these videos. As you wrap up your PhD and figure out what direction to take, think about this growing platform. In addition to your books and other in-person teaching, short videos like this might be one of the best bangs-for-the-buck as far as sharing this kind of measured teaching to a wide audience. (Like it or not, way more people will watch a quick video than read a whole book.) There are MANY people who may not listen to the HP, but might be moved by this series of videos. This is definitely the kind of video that could be sent to a relative or watched as the centerpiece of discussion in a church small group meeting. All to say, I suspect that these videos could end up being one of the most important, influential things that you do professionally in the next few years.
I've always understood this as a rule to remind us not to start revolutions or engage in coups. We must be respectful and present our objections in the same manner.
Just wish the Christian cult could ALL be on the same page instead of needing 40,000 denominations that cannot agree on anything. One of the many reasons I became Atheist.
Thank you for this video! I left the church and Christianity decades ago because I felt the church was broken. My fiance is Christian but because of despair regarding our government and during his military career he's fallen into sovereign citizen beliefs like obeying God before man and refusing to pay taxes which has also gotten him in trouble. I'm hoping this video will help him. He's not going to get the messages he needs from the Creator until he humbles himself and stops getting distracted by nonsense. Thank you, thank you!
The American founding fathers deemed *ALL* religions unfit for modern governance. _“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation.”_ *- John Adams* (American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, Founding Father & 2nd president) The *1st Amendment's Establishment Clause* prohibits the government from making any law, _“respecting an establishment of religion.”_ This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion. *Constitution Article VI Supreme Law - Clause 3 Oaths of Office* _"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _*_but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."_* This means nobody is ever required to swear on the Bible, or any other religious book for an oath of office. They may choose a religious book, but none is required. _“...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."_ *-Treaty of Tripoli - June 7, 1797. Signed by President John Adams & Ratified UNANIMOUSLY, by the United States June 10, 1797* ....only a few times in history the Senate unanimously agreed on anything. _“This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it”_ *-John Adams* )Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 19 April 1817) _"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."_ *-Thomas Jefferson* (Letter from Jefferson to John Adams, 11 April 1823) _"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."_ *-Benjamin Franklin* (Poor Richard's Almanac) _“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion....and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”_ *― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)*
Romans 11:9-21 explains a lot. We have a written process within our government, rules of engagement and due process to address grievances. To abide the process is to abide Romans 11:17 and not repay evil for evil and do what is honorable in the sight of all.
The short tempers in today's society makes it hard for one not to lead to the other. MLK's message about peaceful protest are over in today's world, because it is so lost.
The context of Paul's scripture on government is that government is given to maintain order in society, it is not saying we must follow the government in doing evil.
Romans 13 was the reason why John MacArthur came out against the Revolutionary War, because he wanted to be biblically consistent about obeying the government and not going to war against the British. He said we should have peacefully gained our freedom like Canada did
I’ve heard that as well. So while John MacArthur is probably among my top 10 favorites as far as contemporary theologians go, I’d have to part ways with him on this one (along with his dispensationalism). The reason why is because, yes, we’re supposed to submit to a lawful government as it carries out it’s biblically defined roles, that doesn’t extend to tyranny, and that is what the colonists were fighting against (or perhaps resisting is a better word). The Crown had imposed taxation without representation, was cracking down on freedom of religion, as well as private property rights. If, for instance, the poor souls of Venezuela, or even North Korea, were to rise up and say, ‘No! Enough is enough’, they absolutely would be justified, biblically, morally, ethically, to do so. That’s a world of difference, if I were to say, “I think 35 miles an hour is ridiculously slow on my road; I’m going to speed as fast as I want”. I’d get a ticket, and I should get a ticket! An annoying law I don’t agree with, but doesn’t compel me to sin, I’ve still got to obey.
@@patrickc3419 Where does the Bible say obey your government up until the point it becomes tyrannical? My goodness... Paul wrote this under an evil and ruthless Roman dictator! And Romans 13 doesn't say we have to obey as long as the government is carrying out its biblically defined roles. What I agree with you on, though, is that we don't obey at the point a government compels us to sin.
@@JonathanNYCity Strangely, Paul said some very positive things about that evil dictator. Maybe we shouldn't take that passage at face value. 2,000 years after it was written, we may be missing a piece of the puzzle that would help us understand Paul's intent. Because there is no way that a murderous Empire trying to eradicate the people of God is "the minister of God to thee for good".
@@JonathanNYCity Correct in what you said at the end about not obeying a government which compels sin. You mentioned“tyrannical” and “evil & ruthless”. Those are synonymous descriptions. What I mean by that is we tend think of tyrannical leaders are, for example, North Korea. A biblical example of people doing the right thing by disobedience to government would be Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego. An example in our own history would be those involved in the Underground Railroad. They exist and are in power right here in America, too (as well as Canada. Even more so). And evil is blind to political affiliation. Romans 3:11 says that no one seeks after God.
@@patrickc3419 This reminds me of the argument that God's will changes depending on the situation. It was God's will for the colonists to remain faithful to the crown, but it was no longer His will after the War for Independence created a new government, and even though the new government was created against God's will--it became God's will once the new government in the US was established. Sort of like when you marry the wrong person that was against God's will for you to marry, and then once you marry that person---all of a sudden now, it is God's will that you are married to them. See what I am saying? You can tell I think deeply about these things!
I had this very discussion with two women recently. One was a Jewish Believer, a refugee from Ukraine, whose four sons and brother were fighting in Zalenski's military against Russian aggression. The other woman was a Russian immigrant believer who insisted that scripture said Putin was ordained by God. Her argument was absurd in light of the current situation. She would not listen to reason. Then I asked her if she considered Adolf Hitler a servant of God. The very idea horrified her. Hopefully point taken.
I can sympathise but we need to remember that once independent journalism departs then the likes of Putin can control the narrative to the Russian populace and create an existential battle against the forces of darkness, be they the West or those suffering in Ukraine.
Romans 13 says every government, & every leader is placed there by God. So, I believe the Russian woman is correct and that she should obey Putin's orders and laws - UP UNTIL THE POINT IT WOULD REQUIRE HER TO SIN.
1 Peter 2: 13- 16 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."
@@skyejah Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was the "Only super positive comments allowed" section. Forgive me for posting s real emotional reaction about the real world we live in. Is this better for you? Yay! Great video! I'm SUPER encouraged now! And, BTW, what I said wasn't a criticism.
It's not the world anyone who has ever existed lives in. What you "prefer" is an unreal fantasy that has never existed. So welcome to reality! (It's this desire for clarity and simplicity that is the source of most heresies.)
“The Lord will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do.” How does God create confusion? “Before Him went pestilence, And fever followed at His feet.” Very simple!
In the exultation by Paul reminding us to "rightly divide the word of Truth" we have to take it everything in, that's relevant and then piece it like a puzzle and then in our prayer to ask God to enlighten our understanding, this is where Isaiah's words come in that are so perfect, and unpacking God's word "precept upon precept, here a little, there are little, line upon line" until it all starts to make a picture, yes, what the Lord is saying and Romans 13, he is a what? A God of order He created government, we're reminded of that in apostolic confusion, in 1st Corinthians 14:33 and then skipping down to the very last verse in that chapter, 60, "God is not a god of confusion, but of peace" and then verse 60, how does he like things? "decently and in order" Put them in rightly dividing, we have to skip back two other books that touch on similar topics, Ephesians 5:28 pretty much as the capstone here, "we ought to obey God rather than men"
Deuteronomy 4:2 - "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar." 2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."
Thanks Kaitlan! I feel that most of the time I am in the "obey the government camp" on issues because many times the rebel's attempts to "obey God" simply fail to achieve what they hoped for. Change caused by revolutions usually make things worse for the country and its people. The fact that the American Revolution succeeded as well as it did is due to God's blessing more than man's cleverness.
God was cheering for revolutionaries against Loyalists? Was God also cheering for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Hitler when they got in power? Or was it only for America, because America is God’s sweetheart?
My view is that in a democracy: this passage requires one to accept government authority, but moderated by Christ’s instruction to give unto Cessar that which is Cessar’s, give unto God that which is Gods effectively requires a person to participate in government. And then via participation in democratic government honor God’s will.
Ive read the basics of Christian Nationalism and know who supported it early on. I know it sounds good but praying for discernment and researching good resources will show you trith. I think i found 10 things they belive and maybe 1 or none were what I believe as a Christian. The top promoters are smarter and more tricky than I ever give them credit. BEcause even some of the big quotes from Franklin Graham and more O had to read again and listen. I absolutely believe that we need to stay One Nation Under God the one true God. God the father, God the son , and God the Holy Spirit. The larger Christian churches in my state of Ky and more denominations I know too are very much pushing the radical love of Jesus. LOVE Jesus, Love people.... Loving the ville, and Just praying that our hearts will be broken for others. Praying to see others like Jesus. It is life changing. The Bible never promises our lives will be a Rose Garden. Ive known that my entire life. Noone's life is. But I cant imagine going thru some thinga without Jesus. I do believe that Christianity will always be the majority in America. I do belive we are blessed by God. Because many died for us and for our freedom. Im guessing the highest % of soldiers in history know Jesus. So prosperity gospel if all it preaches is wrong. But it doesnt mean that we arent to prosper either as a Christian. This isnt our home now. But if you have been any place where you start to feel strange as in ," " So is God here?" I have in some places in America that was used as more a tour than Christianity... The Holy Spirit spoke and told me , Im here because I live in you.. Wow! I know some leaders of churches that have been missionaries in Hattii and even in other states where not as many churches are actually there. They claim it is really different. Hard because also in womens Christian events and large places.. The Holy Spirits Power has pulled me in... So learn the trickiness of this Christian Nationality.... Pray about it... thanks
As a 66 year old father and grandfather living in America, I can tell you, you don’t need a Bible to be a good person. You don’t even need religion. Science tells us how to behave, history tells us how to behave, common sense tells us how to behave, my conscience tells me how to behave. I don’t need an antiquated Story book. Although the Bible is a good read the Bible is still just a story book. Aretha Franklin said it best, RESPECT. Respect is the one word we all need to learn, respect the planet, respect the people, respect the wild animals that were here long before greedy humans. It’s ironic that the Bible tells us to pay our taxes when churches are tax exempt.
The plain meaning of the text is extremely clear. Paul wrote what he wrote (as the authorship of Paul is not in dispute amongst mainstream scholars). But that is the problem with Christianity, and probably all religions. you can argue almost anything by picking suitable verses and then "interpreting" them is a way consistent with your already held beliefs. Too many people (especially ideologues) use their preferred scriptures exactly backwards. That is, they search for verses that could potentially support their existing views, rather than read the text and form their views from that text (assuming of course they are an adherant of that particular religion).
Great video. Remember when Paull was given a position of authority & was persecuting believers & the believers were trying to avoid him, rather than submit? Remember when Jesus & family didn't submit to the authority of King Herod, but instead ran away to Egypt? I think Paul was certainly well meaning, but sometimes his writings just aren't perfect, just as would happen to any of us. Often the topics are just too broad, having so many possibilities.
Great video! I suggest doing another on the verse regarding "we obey God rather than men", because that is often used as a political weapon when Christians don't like what the government is doing. And BTW, you used the wrong British flag. They did not add the red diagonal lines until 1801.
You're concerned about "interpretation" and that's a good thing. But there is the additional issue of translation. I prepose to you that Paul never wrote what we typically read in popular translations. I wish all of you the Truth about translation It makes interpretation much easier :)
Whereas some English translations use the word ‘governing’ in verse 1, the Greek text does not. It reads: ‘Let every soul be subject to the superior powers.’ Who or what are these superior powers? It is assumed by many commentators that in this passage St Paul was referring to the secular authorities. But why should we make this assumption? Let us place this passage in context. In the previous chapter of Romans, St Paul had just written ‘Do not be conformed to the world…’ (Romans 12: 2); why should we think that he would almost immediately contradict himself and counsel conformity to the world? The bulk of chapter 12, and the verses of chapter 13 that occur immediately after the passage just quoted, concern themselves with what is required of the Christian in living a Christian life, of the mutual duties and responsibilities among Christians. There is nothing explicit in these two chapters to support the claim that St Paul has switched his focus in the early verses of chapter 13 to discuss the Christian's relationship to civil government. [see Bydeley] In fact, the context seems to support the contrary: St Paul is dealing with spiritual authority within the Body of Christ and the individual members’ relationship to that authority. The apostle tells us to submit to the higher powers, then he quotes the law of the higher powers, the love of neighbour of which the particular commandments are only particular exemplifications. What St Paul is talking about here is the Law of God-what does this have to do with the dictates of the secular authorities? We might wonder why St Paul should suddenly switch to a completely different topic, and then back again to what he was speaking of in chapter 12? Why would St Paul encourage the Roman Christians to obey the secular authorities that were persecuting the Church? Of course, if the enemies of the saints in Rome to whom Romans is not addressed were to come across this letter and read this passage as exhorting Christians to obey the secular authorities and if, deceiving themselves by such a reading, this self-inflicted deception resulted in a lessening of the persecution of Christians, then so much to the good. The technique of deliberate indirection isn’t foreign to the writers of the New Testament and, if we accept the words attributed to Jesus Christ himself in Scripture to be His as in the ‘Render unto Caesar’ passage, not foreign to our Lord Himself either. In putting forward this contextualisation argument, I am happy to find myself in agreement with John Howard Yoder who writes, ‘In the structure of the Epistle, chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form one literary unit. Therefore, the text 13: 1-7 cannot be understood alone.’ [Yoder 1994, 196] Yoder notes that some scholars, such as James Kallas, have taken the passage 13: 1-7 to be an interpolation but he points out, correctly, that such a view is necessitated only if the passage is understood in the way it has come to be understood in later tradition which would make it to be a literary erratic in the context of chapters 12 & 13 of Romans. If it isn’t so understood, then the problem of accounting for this seeming interpolation simply disappears. Given the overall tenor of his book, Robert Gnuse’s treatment of this seminal passage is disappointing. He seems to accept the general understanding of this passage as calling upon Christians to be obedient to the secular authorities, although with some minor reservations. He writes, ‘The ultimate irony of his advice in Romans 13 was that Paul was addressing people who had been oppressed by Rome and would ultimately be martyred by Rome.’ [Gnuse, 139] My irony gland is particularly well developed but I fail to detect any irony whatsoever in the passage. All things considered, then, it would seem much less interpretatively arbitrary to take it that St Paul is exhorting those to whom he wrote this letter to be obedient to their authorities. I am not alone in thinking this way. Mark Nanos reads Romans as a letter from one Jew to other Jews, followers of Christ, who are part of the Roman synagogue communities. According to Nanos, the submission counselled by Paul in Romans 13: 1-7 is submission to the leaders of those synagogues, not to Roman government officials. This account isn’t obviously implausible given that, when Paul wrote, the followers of Jesus in Rome were, for the most part, Jews who worshipped in synagogues. Coming at this passage from another (but not necessarily contradictory) angle, Arthur Ogle argues that the authorities and rulers referred to by Paul are the service-leaders of the nascent Christian community. To repeat the passage from Matthew that I cited earlier: ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.’ [Matthew 20: 25-28] Those who would lead the Christian community are not to lord it over those in their care nor are they to exercise over them authority-as-coercive-domination-archein-that was the norm in the kingdoms of the Gentiles. Christian leadership is to be a form of diakonia, of service, not domination.
If I were to cite one passage, it would have been Matthew 22:21 "...render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" Whatever the interpretation of Romans 13, it is usually not a problem, because the lack of morality of certain things will stop us short of violating laws, which in general are far more lax. The Magna Carta said that it was not illegal to oppose a king who was behaving unlawfully.
I am aggravated because most people stop reading the passage. ... If they continued, they would note that "the sword" was not given for any purpose that those in authority might imagine. It was given for a narrow purpose. What happened to the obligation of those in authority to only use the sword for its given purpose??? Where in the passage is authority given for governing authorities to use the sword to make people pay for favoritism/subsidies to their political allies, or to punish for a difference of opinion? I view the passage as a beautiful balance between order and chaos. The governing authorities have biblical sanction to use force (the sword) against those who do evil. But, people are free from interference from governing authorities so long as they do no evil. This creates a middle ground where people act with their own discretion. This structure maximizes the legitimacy of governing authorities as they are not acting as moral busybodies or become tyrannical over differing customs or social norms, maximizes the ability of social institutions to influence behavior via persuasion, maximizes individual autonomy and responsibility, and utilizes subsidiarity to its fullest. A nearly sycophantic obedience to authority undermines any checks and balances between authorities, institutions, and individuals. Most importantly, it undermines the ability to "nip evil in the bud" via a peaceful refusal to comply. ... Empires often disintegrate due to an excess of obedience. Compliance with absurd laws and economic controls are prolific in the waning years of most empires.
I heard another explanation of Romans 13 that really made sense from a historical perspective. Paul wrote that letter in prison, and sent Phoebe (I think) to deliver the letter. He wanted to warn everyone to be sure to dot their i's and cross their t's because the Emperor and his soldiers were crazy and bloodthirsty, but if he wrote that and then they confiscated the letter and read it, they would have executed him, Phoebe, and maybe even the intended recipients of the letter. So he framed the warning in flattering, Empire-friendly speech.
I grow uneasy when people start saying Christ expects certain behaviors without looking at the context. When Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he might have been recommending a specific way for the Jews to handle the Romans. ... Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should bully people in the name of Christ. So much of Christianity fits neatly into the paradigm of passive resistance. Ghandi, Emerson, and Theroux showed us the way.
Romans 13 was not a political statement as you stated. It was in fact a NON political statement. It was also not directed to society at large. It was directed to believers. Paul's concern was never about society. But, rather, about the church, the body of believers.
The interesting thing about the concept of Hippo tasos which is what 13 of Romans talks about is that only half of it was stated since those who translated it into the King James were afraid of the king they didn't tell the part where only as long as the king is following God's law if we are to follow the king and that is what it truly said you follow the king unless he's not following God's law
"Context" is great. It allows one to "interpret" a text pretty much any way they like. The text means what it says, or, no, I've got a context argument. I heard a lot of opinion in this video. I might even agree with some or all of it. I'm not saying. But I will say the assertions were not proven, and all we have left are opinions. Same situation as the pro and con in the Revolutionary War, except that history is written by the victors.
Given that Paul wrote Romans (including Romans 13) to the Christian’s in Rome when Nero was Emperor and was already persecuting and killing Christians in horrible ways - how did THEY hear and understand Paul’s words (an important issue here since we are also led to consider how the original audience heard and understood scripture)?
This is something I really struggle with. I thought this video was really good but still it says to pay taxes. Taxes are literally the government saying give me some of your money or eventually people with guns will show up and put you in a cage. How is that not a form of stealing?
A government that _obeys_ the laws of God and accordingly treats its citizens fairly and equally is a righteous government. Such a government has been appointed by God. It is to be obeyed. A government that _revolts_ against God and is based in anthropocentric principles is an unrighteous government. That type of government has not been appointed by God. We have a duty to attempt to correct such a wayward government with a measure of grace, and, if that is unsuccessful, to take up arms against it. That's the difference. Simple as.
You had a very balanced presentation of this subject,but, you miss one HUGE factor. When Pilate asked Christ are you a king ? He replied I am but my kingdom ie government is not of this world,if it was i would have had my attendants fight so i would not have been delivered to you. Daniel 2:44 says in the days of those kings ie governing authorities the God of heaven will crush and put and end to all their authority and his kingship will rule forever, this is what Christians have been waiting for,
Lady makes some good points. What's sad is the some "Christians" will use the passage to justify actions and beliefs that Jesus would just shake his head at and say "this is wrong".
There are always governing law that does not contradict God's command but very difficult to obey. What about poor people living in slum area? This is illegal. Is it a sin to live in slum area?
It’s funny how people will make up another question because they don’t want to answer the one asked… It’s simple. We are to obey and submit to our human authority, they have been placed in authority by God. When the human authority commands do not line up with Gods commands, we obey and submit to God. The false church or religious communities have been using scripture to justify evil and selfish ambitions since Jesus left. They will continue to until he returns.
Being in subject to the government is not the same as being obedient to government. For example, Roman law required its citizens to be involved at times in various festivals dedicated to Roman gods. Paul would hardly be teaching full obedience. Most likely this is in connection to the zealot movement in which Israelites were wanting to overthrow the Roman Empire. The previous chapters in Romand dealt with Israel and to not scorn the root in the Gentiles were grafted into. Likewise, they weren't to over identify with the zealot movement that some Israelites were still apart of. Therefore being subject to the government of Rome was a warning against sedition and not a teaching on complete submission to Rome.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
I cannot begin to properly thank you for this, Kaitlyn. I am SO GRATEFUL that God has called (& placed you) where you are, & in my lifetime, and that you choose to be such a good & faithful servant.
One situation in which the Bible makes quite clear to NOT obey the government: if the emperor or king demands to be worshipped as a deity.
Of if they require you to do anything that would constitute a sin.
The Roman emperors already did that. And Paul says to still obey the government. You may however be a soldier, that seems to be allowable.
@@duncescotus2342 Nobody in the early church condoned emperor worship. Pay your taxes and otherwise obey the government, yes. Participate in paganism, no. Read up on Nicolaitan heresy.
@@pyrovania We have zero information in scripture on what the Nicolaitans were doing, only that Spirit didn't like it.
It's quite possible your doctrine is Nicolaitan. You certainly don't mind jumping to extra-biblical conclusions. Why not let the text stand as is, and work your worldview around it instead of shoehorning the text into your own version of things?
Our Founding Fathers practiced plenty of paganism. Our national anthem is taken from a pagan hymn to a god of drinking and sex, even homoerotic love.
I am not condoning the government, only that it is godly to suffer for rightdoing, not wrongdoing.
@@duncescotus2342 The New English Version study bible has an explanation of who the Nicolaitans were in the footnotes.
Good video. I teach adult Sunday School, and it is often tempting to teach a lesson within the narrow framework of a single passage or a commonly perception. Yet when we make an effort to read/teach/apply within the context of the whole of scripture, we learn that God is not as dogmatic as we would like Him to be. It is our tendency toward dogmatism (and its opposite of situational, creative interpretation) that blindsides us. If we truly want the truth, it will set us free to follow God's path for our lives (Proverbs 3: 5 & 6).
Kaitlyn Schiess knocks it out of the park! Context is king and Spirit led nuance and wisdom engaging the whole of Scripture in community with other Christians is the way forward every time.
Context is not king. Jesus is King. And the Holy Spirit is here to take his place on earth. The words of Paul stand as the words of the Spirit. Shame on you and this Calvinist Jezebel. Pray once in a while.
@@duncescotus2342 In just a couple of sentences you have exhibited the sheer arrogance, stupidity and misogyny that evangelism is created from.
LOVE this! And I'm sharing with many. We listen to the Holy Post a lot and always love Kaitlyn's take on issues. She is very well-spoken and a deep thinker. Thanks for putting this together. The illustrations are really well done and enhance the message.
Thank you Kaitlyn!
Good and challenging stuff! Thanks Kaitlyn and team for putting this out there!
This form of content I think is the best thing y'all put out there, very helpful!
Kaitlyn does such an amazing job at giving a measured & intelligent response. Where people on the left & right often take scripture out of context solely to promote their beliefs, she is correct saying that we need to discern where the Holy Spirit is leading us, put God above politics & do good political theology.
.
Looking forward to reading her book & please post more Kaitlyn segments!😁
Who takes it out of context? I know the conservative right does but the left for the most part can see right past its nonsensical retorick. Exodus and the splitting of an entire sea by the wave of a staff. That is already taking things way out of context. No God gave a made-up fella called Moses the power to block out the sun and create plagues. if you actually believe that version of events then you have a serious problem with how you perceive reality. One does not have to take the Bible's tall tales of context to see its insanity.
So I ask you, how exactly do non-theists on the left take it out of context?
Scripture is fiction.
@@Ellecram Making scripture a lawful document would be like making Peter Pan a pilot's manual.
I know I'm repeating my previous post but I believe the analogy is effing hilarious.
@@Ellecram Nope! But I am glad you are watching this channel 😁
@@Mr152008 I am glad you are presenting your beliefs in a reasonable, practical manner! I enjoy your channel.
Kaitlyn, you and the rest of the HP are so refreshing. You’re balanced and sensitive. Plus your guests have joined my regular people to listen to. And just BTW, I’ a messianic Jew. Anything you’ve said about Jews or the Old Testament have been right on. Thanks!
Did she say they were disobedient? Because you're not allowed to pervert Romans 13 to justify your politics. If you think Paul thought Rome was righteous, think again. He suffered his martyrdom there.
fascist@@duncescotus2342
"Why are American Christians so attached to it?" Because it is the ultimate easy/lazy condemnation of those that disagree with any given christian political stance. It also breeds self-righteousness and hypocrisy. These misinterpretations/misrepresentations are exactly why the separation of church and state is so very vital.
This feels like Crash Course: Theology and I am here for it.
You’re wise beyond your years, young lady. Our allegiance it to God, not the political powers that be. I’m gonna obey God rather than man myself.👍🏽Looking forward to reading your book🙌🏽.
Can we please share this on our other sites so this can reach as many souls as possible? We need these truths to reach the most isolated corners of Louisiana yet blast through the daily grind of New York.
Brilliant Kaitlyn. Go for it. “kaitlyn’s kollege” is a thing. Great engaging presentation, punchy and to the point. Superb.
Two things: 1)The Holy Post does an excellent job creating these explainers and using graphics, colors, and language to accentuate what's being said.
and 2) Kaitlyn is so brilliant. What a treasure she is for all of us.
Nuance, who'd of thunk it? Nice job on a well balanced and thoughtful discussion. I especially like that you didn't try and say, "if it's this, then do this, but if it's that, then do that." Trying to be specific on what's right on every circumstance is a losing battle. Better to say, "let's really think this out, read up, and talk to others, especially from diverse backgrounds."
Nuance, may ass. The devil is slithering subtle one. Nuance is for mysterious passages. St. Paul is clear as a bell. Do not bring shame upon the name of Jesus.
Our problem with interpretation goes way beyond the axiom concerning context--"A text taken out of context quickly becomes a pretext." The root problem was mentioned, and that is one of going through the Bible cafeteria style (I'd like some fried chicken, taters...but no thank you on the Brussel's Sprouts!). Chapter and verse breaks are relatively new (13th & 16th century, respectively) to the Bible, and we have MIS-used them, context oftentimes being the first item to suffer. All Scripture is inspired...and all Scripture is harmonious. God didn't somehow become a Christian between Malachi and Matthew--and neither did He become an American somewhere in the Epistles. Thanks from a 35 year veteran pulpit person for this video. I came to it thinking, "Here we go..." but after watching it twice I'm glad you posted it! There are a multitude of items in this country (US) that we need to stop. Bible Battling/Bickering Brethren is at the top of the list. The world can sniff it out rather quickly, and they laugh. Think I'll sub.
How do you
Feel about the border crisis, being a Christian?
@@thomasdownard155 First, we've lived on the southern border for 15 years--two stones throw from the fence, w/o problems, NONE. Second, media has WAY overblown things just for ratings. I realise a country has a right to open/close/monitor their own borders, however, I'm repulsed by using human beings in their miserable plight (escaping countries just to stay alive) as a tug-o-war point between the parties. I also hate when Xians say things like, "Drive 'em down to the Rio Grande and throw them in the river!" Really!? Doesn't sound like Jesus Christ to me. If the majority want to deport, then do it legally AND humanely. Since many, many are working, paying taxes and SoSec, putting their kids through K-college, then find a path for citizenship. Those are doing way more than some Americans are!
Best that people keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion. Because mixing the two only corrupts them both.
Absolutely an outstanding video, and presented very well, and I’m sure that Siskel and Ebert would have given it two thumbs up. 👍🏽 👍🏽
I'm reminded of when Jesus says "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
We might not agree with the law of the land but the land has been given over to the authority of people. Though it is not God's way it is how those ruling people wish it to be. As believers we are part of an everlasting kingdom of God and do not need to obsess over winning our nations from those who rule them as much as our focus should be calling people to follow Jesus.
Most people do not follow God and in a democracy we will be outvoted. But the laws that will exist as a result, the laws that non believers live by, are for them and we honour them by letting them enjoy their God given freedom to defy him. We will live with a different focus but needn't fight their life choices.
The passage that involves "Turn the other cheek" speaks to this too. Jesus tells us not to resist the evil person. Lovingly tolerate it and let God deal with it.
Amen! Very well said!
And this is why the voting bloc commonly known as Evangelical (White Nationalist) Christians has decided they prefer Donald Trump because 'Jesus is too much of a pussy.'
Ok this was well said. This actually answers my question. Thank you so much 🙏
Kaitlyn, thanks for your insightful thoughts on this. It isn't easy but we need to put in the time and effort to be faithful with the text and not "wield it as a weapon".
The foundational point being made in Romans and 1 Peter is that the heart of a Christian should not be moved primarily by a spirit of rebellion, but primarily by a spirit of submission. Those who refuse to submit to someone they can see is unable to submit to someone they can't see. The person who constantly moves in rebellion to all earthly authority doesn't know _how_ to submit to Jesus' "still, small voice." We have to practice submission as much as possible to the early king to know how to submit to the King of Kings.
🎼This particular verse has bothered me for ages. Thank you for this brilliant explanation. I'll have to buy one of your books now.🎶
Well done video! I've rarely heard Romans 13 addressed in a thoughtful way rather than acting as a blanket approval to government when it agrees with you.
The idea that taxation is contributing to your community is nonsense, though. Taxation is a coercive extraction of wealth from the working class to the ruling class. Not to go into the fact that taxes are the fuel for endless wars, massive prison systems, ICE hunting and rounding up human beings like animals, etc.
I'm not saying we shouldn't allow ourselves to be extorted via taxation as Paul teaches, but taxation is definitely an evil.
Very well said and easy to grasp!
Not to make biblical interpretation too wishy washy, but ive started treating many of these passages as guidelines or best practices to be applied in particular contexts, rather than absoute moral laws / directives that are universally applicable without regard to context. It doesnt help all the time, but it can help avoid some of the apparent contradictions.
That almost sounds like you're saying that you pick and choose what parts of the bible you should follow? That in itself is a contradiction!
@@tonyclif1 it's only a contradiction if you buy into the assumption that the Bible was intended to be treated as a legal text. I reject that assumption. The text should always be interpreted within its cultural context, not according to a hyperliteral construction that implicitly adopts our own cultural biases. And the ancient Jews would laugh at how we have treated texts, which were written to them, in our hyper legal framework.
@@jonathonpolk3592 ok, I kinda agree with some of what you say, but to me, you are still cherry picking what suits you.
It's also interesting that your take is very different to what I anecdotely see as the view of the majority of Christians, who see the bible as the literal word of an all knowing god. And with the bible supposedly drafted over many centuries, the cultural context would have been constantly changing - look at our cultural change over the last decade, let alone the last century, or the last millenium. So which cultural period do you rely on exactly?
@@tonyclif1that's the only thing to do if you want to keep this book and remain moral, you have to pick and choose because the book itself is just something else.
Whatever method you would use to judge which portion of the bible and when to apply it means you're not using the bible itself to decide, now why not completely leave the bible and use that method for your life because it would appear whatever that method is, it is better than the bible. .
Go Kaitlin! Great job w these videos! 🎉👏🏽✅💥
Thank you for this enlightenment. Much appreciated.
Kaitlyn, as a fan (who attended the first HP Live show), I want to encourage you to keep making these videos. As you wrap up your PhD and figure out what direction to take, think about this growing platform. In addition to your books and other in-person teaching, short videos like this might be one of the best bangs-for-the-buck as far as sharing this kind of measured teaching to a wide audience. (Like it or not, way more people will watch a quick video than read a whole book.) There are MANY people who may not listen to the HP, but might be moved by this series of videos. This is definitely the kind of video that could be sent to a relative or watched as the centerpiece of discussion in a church small group meeting. All to say, I suspect that these videos could end up being one of the most important, influential things that you do professionally in the next few years.
I've always understood this as a rule to remind us not to start revolutions or engage in coups. We must be respectful and present our objections in the same manner.
Really? And when Govt tells us to take the mark?
Never.
Republicans telling BLM to obey the gov is pretty rich!
i'm athiest, but i am enjoying these videos explaining the scriptures being applied to real life issues.
Just wish the Christian cult could ALL be on the same page instead of needing 40,000 denominations that cannot agree on anything.
One of the many reasons I became Atheist.
What is keeping you from Jesus if you don’t mind me asking?☺️
@@eden8831 common sense, primarily. sensible rules don't require a mythical being to give them.
Great video Kaitlyn! 👏
Thank you for this video! I left the church and Christianity decades ago because I felt the church was broken. My fiance is Christian but because of despair regarding our government and during his military career he's fallen into sovereign citizen beliefs like obeying God before man and refusing to pay taxes which has also gotten him in trouble. I'm hoping this video will help him. He's not going to get the messages he needs from the Creator until he humbles himself and stops getting distracted by nonsense. Thank you, thank you!
The American founding fathers deemed *ALL* religions unfit for modern governance.
_“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation.”_
*- John Adams* (American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, Founding Father & 2nd president)
The *1st Amendment's Establishment Clause* prohibits the government from making any law, _“respecting an establishment of religion.”_
This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion.
*Constitution Article VI Supreme Law - Clause 3 Oaths of Office*
_"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _*_but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."_*
This means nobody is ever required to swear on the Bible, or any other religious book for an oath of office. They may choose a religious book, but none is required.
_“...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."_
*-Treaty of Tripoli - June 7, 1797. Signed by President John Adams & Ratified UNANIMOUSLY, by the United States June 10, 1797*
....only a few times in history the Senate unanimously agreed on anything.
_“This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it”_
*-John Adams* )Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 19 April 1817)
_"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."_
*-Thomas Jefferson* (Letter from Jefferson to John Adams, 11 April 1823)
_"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."_
*-Benjamin Franklin* (Poor Richard's Almanac)
_“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion....and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”_
*― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)*
The Bible says we should pay taxes. Your man does not have a correct understanding of God's word if he thinks otherwise
Looks like your partner is the good one from leaving the church! Good for him! There is No message that he needs from the mythical Bible!
Romans 11:9-21 explains a lot. We have a written process within our government, rules of engagement and due process to address grievances. To abide the process is to abide Romans 11:17 and not repay evil for evil and do what is honorable in the sight of all.
Protesting is a form of petitioning the government, not disobeying the government.
Sedition is another matter, as is violence, as is terrorism.
The short tempers in today's society makes it hard for one not to lead to the other. MLK's message about peaceful protest are over in today's world, because it is so lost.
The context of Paul's scripture on government is that government is given to maintain order in society, it is not saying we must follow the government in doing evil.
Romans 13 was the reason why John MacArthur came out against the Revolutionary War, because he wanted to be biblically consistent about obeying the government and not going to war against the British. He said we should have peacefully gained our freedom like Canada did
I’ve heard that as well.
So while John MacArthur is probably among my top 10 favorites as far as contemporary theologians go, I’d have to part ways with him on this one (along with his dispensationalism). The reason why is because, yes, we’re supposed to submit to a lawful government as it carries out it’s biblically defined roles, that doesn’t extend to tyranny, and that is what the colonists were fighting against (or perhaps resisting is a better word). The Crown had imposed taxation without representation, was cracking down on freedom of religion, as well as private property rights.
If, for instance, the poor souls of Venezuela, or even North Korea, were to rise up and say, ‘No! Enough is enough’, they absolutely would be justified, biblically, morally, ethically, to do so.
That’s a world of difference, if I were to say, “I think 35 miles an hour is ridiculously slow on my road; I’m going to speed as fast as I want”. I’d get a ticket, and I should get a ticket! An annoying law I don’t agree with, but doesn’t compel me to sin, I’ve still got to obey.
@@patrickc3419 Where does the Bible say obey your government up until the point it becomes tyrannical? My goodness... Paul wrote this under an evil and ruthless Roman dictator! And Romans 13 doesn't say we have to obey as long as the government is carrying out its biblically defined roles. What I agree with you on, though, is that we don't obey at the point a government compels us to sin.
@@JonathanNYCity Strangely, Paul said some very positive things about that evil dictator. Maybe we shouldn't take that passage at face value. 2,000 years after it was written, we may be missing a piece of the puzzle that would help us understand Paul's intent. Because there is no way that a murderous Empire trying to eradicate the people of God is "the minister of God to thee for good".
@@JonathanNYCity
Correct in what you said at the end about not obeying a government which compels sin.
You mentioned“tyrannical” and “evil & ruthless”. Those are synonymous descriptions. What I mean by that is we tend think of tyrannical leaders are, for example, North Korea. A biblical example of people doing the right thing by disobedience to government would be Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego. An example in our own history would be those involved in the Underground Railroad.
They exist and are in power right here in America, too (as well as Canada. Even more so). And evil is blind to political affiliation. Romans 3:11 says that no one seeks after God.
@@patrickc3419 This reminds me of the argument that God's will changes depending on the situation. It was God's will for the colonists to remain faithful to the crown, but it was no longer His will after the War for Independence created a new government, and even though the new government was created against God's will--it became God's will once the new government in the US was established. Sort of like when you marry the wrong person that was against God's will for you to marry, and then once you marry that person---all of a sudden now, it is God's will that you are married to them. See what I am saying? You can tell I think deeply about these things!
I had this very discussion with two women recently. One was a Jewish Believer, a refugee from Ukraine, whose four sons and brother were fighting in Zalenski's military against Russian aggression. The other woman was a Russian immigrant believer who insisted that scripture said Putin was ordained by God. Her argument was absurd in light of the current situation. She would not listen to reason. Then I asked her if she considered Adolf Hitler a servant of God. The very idea horrified her. Hopefully point taken.
I can sympathise but we need to remember that once independent journalism departs then the likes of Putin can control the narrative to the Russian populace and create an existential battle against the forces of darkness, be they the West or those suffering in Ukraine.
Pro-Beijing Christians in Hong Kong consider Xi Jinping as an ordained servant of God.
Romans 13 says every government, & every leader is placed there by God. So, I believe the Russian woman is correct and that she should obey Putin's orders and laws - UP UNTIL THE POINT IT WOULD REQUIRE HER TO SIN.
1 Peter 2: 13- 16 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."
I agree with what you said even though I don't like it. I would prefer a clear and definitive answer but, I suppose, that's not the world we live in.
So why don't you present your alternative response.
@@skyejah My alternative response would be one that is clear and definitive. But such a response isn't reality.
So post it and stop pretending that you have an opinion besides criticism. Iron sharpen iron.
@@skyejah Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was the "Only super positive comments allowed" section. Forgive me for posting s real emotional reaction about the real world we live in. Is this better for you?
Yay! Great video! I'm SUPER encouraged now!
And, BTW, what I said wasn't a criticism.
It's not the world anyone who has ever existed lives in. What you "prefer" is an unreal fantasy that has never existed. So welcome to reality!
(It's this desire for clarity and simplicity that is the source of most heresies.)
“The Lord will send on you cursing, confusion,
and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do.”
How does God create confusion?
“Before Him went pestilence,
And fever followed at His feet.”
Very simple!
In the exultation by Paul reminding us to "rightly divide the word of Truth" we have to take it everything in, that's relevant and then piece it like a puzzle and then in our prayer to ask God to enlighten our understanding, this is where Isaiah's words come in that are so perfect, and unpacking God's word "precept upon precept, here a little, there are little, line upon line" until it all starts to make a picture, yes, what the Lord is saying and Romans 13, he is a what?
A God of order
He created government, we're reminded of that in apostolic confusion, in 1st Corinthians 14:33 and then skipping down to the very last verse in that chapter, 60, "God is not a god of confusion, but of peace" and then verse 60, how does he like things? "decently and in order"
Put them in rightly dividing, we have to skip back two other books that touch on similar topics, Ephesians 5:28 pretty much as the capstone here, "we ought to obey God rather than men"
Very well said! Thanks for this insight
Love this! Thank you for your insite!
Deuteronomy 4:2 - "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you."
Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."
2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."
Thanks Kaitlan! I feel that most of the time I am in the "obey the government camp" on issues because many times the rebel's attempts to "obey God" simply fail to achieve what they hoped for. Change caused by revolutions usually make things worse for the country and its people. The fact that the American Revolution succeeded as well as it did is due to God's blessing more than man's cleverness.
What's your proof?
@@ursamagickmt672maybe compare the outcome of the American revolution with the outcomes of the French, Russian, Cuban, Chinese, etc., revolutions.
God was cheering for revolutionaries against Loyalists? Was God also cheering for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Hitler when they got in power? Or was it only for America, because America is God’s sweetheart?
3:36 Where’s the GRAMMATICAL context?!?!
My view is that in a democracy: this passage requires one to accept government authority, but moderated by Christ’s instruction to give unto Cessar that which is Cessar’s, give unto God that which is Gods effectively requires a person to participate in government.
And then via participation in democratic government honor God’s will.
Ive read the basics of Christian Nationalism and know who supported it early on. I know it sounds good but praying for discernment and researching good resources will show you trith. I think i found 10 things they belive and maybe 1 or none were what I believe as a Christian. The top promoters are smarter and more tricky than I ever give them credit. BEcause even some of the big quotes from Franklin Graham and more O had to read again and listen. I absolutely believe that we need to stay One Nation Under God the one true God. God the father, God the son , and God the Holy Spirit. The larger Christian churches in my state of Ky and more denominations I know too are very much pushing the radical love of Jesus. LOVE Jesus, Love people.... Loving the ville, and Just praying that our hearts will be broken for others. Praying to see others like Jesus. It is life changing. The Bible never promises our lives will be a Rose Garden. Ive known that my entire life. Noone's life is. But I cant imagine going thru some thinga without Jesus. I do believe that Christianity will always be the majority in America. I do belive we are blessed by God. Because many died for us and for our freedom. Im guessing the highest % of soldiers in history know Jesus. So prosperity gospel if all it preaches is wrong. But it doesnt mean that we arent to prosper either as a Christian. This isnt our home now. But if you have been any place where you start to feel strange as in ," " So is God here?" I have in some places in America that was used as more a tour than Christianity... The Holy Spirit spoke and told me , Im here because I live in you.. Wow!
I know some leaders of churches that have been missionaries in Hattii and even in other states where not as many churches are actually there. They claim it is really different. Hard because also in womens Christian events and large places.. The Holy Spirits Power has pulled me in... So learn the trickiness of this Christian Nationality.... Pray about it... thanks
As a 66 year old father and grandfather living in America, I can tell you, you don’t need a Bible to be a good person. You don’t even need religion. Science tells us how to behave, history tells us how to behave, common sense tells us how to behave, my conscience tells me how to behave. I don’t need an antiquated Story book. Although the Bible is a good read the Bible is still just a story book. Aretha Franklin said it best, RESPECT. Respect is the one word we all need to learn, respect the planet, respect the people, respect the wild animals that were here long before greedy humans. It’s ironic that the Bible tells us to pay our taxes when churches are tax exempt.
The 3 wise men also haul ass avoiding king herod why didn't they obey the king
The plain meaning of the text is extremely clear. Paul wrote what he wrote (as the authorship of Paul is not in dispute amongst mainstream scholars).
But that is the problem with Christianity, and probably all religions. you can argue almost anything by picking suitable verses and then "interpreting" them is a way consistent with your already held beliefs. Too many people (especially ideologues) use their preferred scriptures exactly backwards. That is, they search for verses that could potentially support their existing views, rather than read the text and form their views from that text (assuming of course they are an adherant of that particular religion).
Great video. Remember when Paull was given a position of authority & was persecuting believers & the believers were trying to avoid him, rather than submit? Remember when Jesus & family didn't submit to the authority of King Herod, but instead ran away to Egypt? I think Paul was certainly well meaning, but sometimes his writings just aren't perfect, just as would happen to any of us. Often the topics are just too broad, having so many possibilities.
A good person lives their life based upon "what" is right... Not "who" is right.
Great video! I suggest doing another on the verse regarding "we obey God rather than men", because that is often used as a political weapon when Christians don't like what the government is doing. And BTW, you used the wrong British flag. They did not add the red diagonal lines until 1801.
I see we're cutting the puzzle pieces to make them fit, huh?
I see we ain't listening, huh?
Maybe projection. She expanded the 1 verse to many and you saw what you wanted.
Thank you for this
Thanks
St. AUGUSTINE of Hippo said that an unjust law is no law at all.
Excellent
You're concerned about "interpretation" and that's a good thing. But there is the additional issue of translation. I prepose to you that Paul never wrote what we typically read in popular translations. I wish all of you the Truth about translation It makes interpretation much easier :)
Interesting. Are you fluent in ancient Greek? Which translation do you believe is most accurate?
Whereas some English translations use the word ‘governing’ in verse 1, the Greek text does not. It reads: ‘Let every soul be subject to the superior powers.’ Who or what are these superior powers? It is assumed by many commentators that in this passage St Paul was referring to the secular authorities. But why should we make this assumption? Let us place this passage in context. In the previous chapter of Romans, St Paul had just written ‘Do not be conformed to the world…’ (Romans 12: 2); why should we think that he would almost immediately contradict himself and counsel conformity to the world? The bulk of chapter 12, and the verses of chapter 13 that occur immediately after the passage just quoted, concern themselves with what is required of the Christian in living a Christian life, of the mutual duties and responsibilities among Christians. There is nothing explicit in these two chapters to support the claim that St Paul has switched his focus in the early verses of chapter 13 to discuss the Christian's relationship to civil government. [see Bydeley] In fact, the context seems to support the contrary: St Paul is dealing with spiritual authority within the Body of Christ and the individual members’ relationship to that authority. The apostle tells us to submit to the higher powers, then he quotes the law of the higher powers, the love of neighbour of which the particular commandments are only particular exemplifications. What St Paul is talking about here is the Law of God-what does this have to do with the dictates of the secular authorities? We might wonder why St Paul should suddenly switch to a completely different topic, and then back again to what he was speaking of in chapter 12? Why would St Paul encourage the Roman Christians to obey the secular authorities that were persecuting the Church? Of course, if the enemies of the saints in Rome to whom Romans is not addressed were to come across this letter and read this passage as exhorting Christians to obey the secular authorities and if, deceiving themselves by such a reading, this self-inflicted deception resulted in a lessening of the persecution of Christians, then so much to the good. The technique of deliberate indirection isn’t foreign to the writers of the New Testament and, if we accept the words attributed to Jesus Christ himself in Scripture to be His as in the ‘Render unto Caesar’ passage, not foreign to our Lord Himself either.
In putting forward this contextualisation argument, I am happy to find myself in agreement with John Howard Yoder who writes, ‘In the structure of the Epistle, chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form one literary unit. Therefore, the text 13: 1-7 cannot be understood alone.’ [Yoder 1994, 196] Yoder notes that some scholars, such as James Kallas, have taken the passage 13: 1-7 to be an interpolation but he points out, correctly, that such a view is necessitated only if the passage is understood in the way it has come to be understood in later tradition which would make it to be a literary erratic in the context of chapters 12 & 13 of Romans. If it isn’t so understood, then the problem of accounting for this seeming interpolation simply disappears. Given the overall tenor of his book, Robert Gnuse’s treatment of this seminal passage is disappointing. He seems to accept the general understanding of this passage as calling upon Christians to be obedient to the secular authorities, although with some minor reservations. He writes, ‘The ultimate irony of his advice in Romans 13 was that Paul was addressing people who had been oppressed by Rome and would ultimately be martyred by Rome.’ [Gnuse, 139] My irony gland is particularly well developed but I fail to detect any irony whatsoever in the passage.
All things considered, then, it would seem much less interpretatively arbitrary to take it that St Paul is exhorting those to whom he wrote this letter to be obedient to their authorities. I am not alone in thinking this way. Mark Nanos reads Romans as a letter from one Jew to other Jews, followers of Christ, who are part of the Roman synagogue communities. According to Nanos, the submission counselled by Paul in Romans 13: 1-7 is submission to the leaders of those synagogues, not to Roman government officials. This account isn’t obviously implausible given that, when Paul wrote, the followers of Jesus in Rome were, for the most part, Jews who worshipped in synagogues. Coming at this passage from another (but not necessarily contradictory) angle, Arthur Ogle argues that the authorities and rulers referred to by Paul are the service-leaders of the nascent Christian community. To repeat the passage from Matthew that I cited earlier: ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.’ [Matthew 20: 25-28] Those who would lead the Christian community are not to lord it over those in their care nor are they to exercise over them authority-as-coercive-domination-archein-that was the norm in the kingdoms of the Gentiles. Christian leadership is to be a form of diakonia, of service, not domination.
If I were to cite one passage, it would have been Matthew 22:21 "...render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
Whatever the interpretation of Romans 13, it is usually not a problem, because the lack of morality of certain things will stop us short of violating laws, which in general are far more lax.
The Magna Carta said that it was not illegal to oppose a king who was behaving unlawfully.
There is a difference between Submit and Obey
I am aggravated because most people stop reading the passage. ... If they continued, they would note that "the sword" was not given for any purpose that those in authority might imagine. It was given for a narrow purpose. What happened to the obligation of those in authority to only use the sword for its given purpose???
Where in the passage is authority given for governing authorities to use the sword to make people pay for favoritism/subsidies to their political allies, or to punish for a difference of opinion?
I view the passage as a beautiful balance between order and chaos. The governing authorities have biblical sanction to use force (the sword) against those who do evil. But, people are free from interference from governing authorities so long as they do no evil. This creates a middle ground where people act with their own discretion. This structure maximizes the legitimacy of governing authorities as they are not acting as moral busybodies or become tyrannical over differing customs or social norms, maximizes the ability of social institutions to influence behavior via persuasion, maximizes individual autonomy and responsibility, and utilizes subsidiarity to its fullest.
A nearly sycophantic obedience to authority undermines any checks and balances between authorities, institutions, and individuals. Most importantly, it undermines the ability to "nip evil in the bud" via a peaceful refusal to comply. ... Empires often disintegrate due to an excess of obedience. Compliance with absurd laws and economic controls are prolific in the waning years of most empires.
I heard another explanation of Romans 13 that really made sense from a historical perspective. Paul wrote that letter in prison, and sent Phoebe (I think) to deliver the letter. He wanted to warn everyone to be sure to dot their i's and cross their t's because the Emperor and his soldiers were crazy and bloodthirsty, but if he wrote that and then they confiscated the letter and read it, they would have executed him, Phoebe, and maybe even the intended recipients of the letter. So he framed the warning in flattering, Empire-friendly speech.
I grow uneasy when people start saying Christ expects certain behaviors without looking at the context. When Jesus said "turn the other cheek" he might have been recommending a specific way for the Jews to handle the Romans. ... Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should bully people in the name of Christ. So much of Christianity fits neatly into the paradigm of passive resistance. Ghandi, Emerson, and Theroux showed us the way.
The passage was written and established as control for the Roman Empire, hence "Romans".
Yes unless it violates GODS Law
All authorities are appointed by GOD
God is the authority or Government is authority. Choose one.
Great analysis, coming from and atheist.
Romans 13 was not a political statement as you stated. It was in fact a NON political statement. It was also not directed to society at large. It was directed to believers. Paul's concern was never about society. But, rather, about the church, the body of believers.
The interesting thing about the concept of Hippo tasos which is what 13 of Romans talks about is that only half of it was stated since those who translated it into the King James were afraid of the king they didn't tell the part where only as long as the king is following God's law if we are to follow the king and that is what it truly said you follow the king unless he's not following God's law
"Context" is great. It allows one to "interpret" a text pretty much any way they like. The text means what it says, or, no, I've got a context argument. I heard a lot of opinion in this video. I might even agree with some or all of it. I'm not saying. But I will say the assertions were not proven, and all we have left are opinions. Same situation as the pro and con in the Revolutionary War, except that history is written by the victors.
You might have used "opinion" incorrectly here. There was A LOT of Bible verses as proof, but you might have walked off when they were used.
🤠💜 LOVE AND ALGORITHM APPEASEMENT AND LOVE!
Given that Paul wrote Romans (including Romans 13) to the Christian’s in Rome when Nero was Emperor and was already persecuting and killing Christians in horrible ways - how did THEY hear and understand Paul’s words (an important issue here since we are also led to consider how the original audience heard and understood scripture)?
This. Right. Here.
Well she knows how to talk in circles without answering any question.
This is something I really struggle with. I thought this video was really good but still it says to pay taxes. Taxes are literally the government saying give me some of your money or eventually people with guns will show up and put you in a cage. How is that not a form of stealing?
Yes.
Know when to obey government. Obey God always. Pray for the wisdom to know the difference. You can't be a fundamentalist.
Love this and enjoying your book. Thanks for all you do 👏
A government that _obeys_ the laws of God and accordingly treats its citizens fairly and equally is a righteous government. Such a government has been appointed by God. It is to be obeyed. A government that _revolts_ against God and is based in anthropocentric principles is an unrighteous government. That type of government has not been appointed by God. We have a duty to attempt to correct such a wayward government with a measure of grace, and, if that is unsuccessful, to take up arms against it. That's the difference. Simple as.
Good points
The government was appoint to punish those who do wrong and reward those who do right. Not to rule like an iron fist
Am I expected to take biblical advice from a woman? I’m still so confused by which biblical wisdom to follow…
Monothiestic religious intutions are by core nature, instutions of "Duality ",, is it "Good" or is it "Evil", Judgements involving Heaven "or" Hell .
You had a very balanced presentation of this subject,but, you miss one HUGE factor. When Pilate asked Christ are you a king ? He replied I am but my kingdom ie government is not of this world,if it was i would have had my attendants fight so i would not have been delivered to you. Daniel 2:44 says in the days of those kings ie governing authorities the God of heaven will crush and put and end to all their authority and his kingship will rule forever, this is what Christians have been waiting for,
Such an unhelpful video.
Lady makes some good points. What's sad is the some "Christians" will use the passage to justify actions and beliefs that Jesus would just shake his head at and say "this is wrong".
These myths are dangerous. Especially in the hands of the current "A la carte" believers.
I get a kick out of Job's wife. She tells Job to "curse God and die!"
Romans 13; Revelation 13 . . . Potent!
So, Romans 13 says I need to follow the speed limit since that's part of 'the government' :)
Really well done!!
There are always governing law that does not contradict God's command but very difficult to obey. What about poor people living in slum area? This is illegal. Is it a sin to live in slum area?
Very well put. God bless.
It’s funny how people will make up another question because they don’t want to answer the one asked…
It’s simple. We are to obey and submit to our human authority, they have been placed in authority by God. When the human authority commands do not line up with Gods commands, we obey and submit to God.
The false church or religious communities have been using scripture to justify evil and selfish ambitions since Jesus left. They will continue to until he returns.
Being in subject to the government is not the same as being obedient to government. For example, Roman law required its citizens to be involved at times in various festivals dedicated to Roman gods. Paul would hardly be teaching full obedience. Most likely this is in connection to the zealot movement in which Israelites were wanting to overthrow the Roman Empire. The previous chapters in Romand dealt with Israel and to not scorn the root in the Gentiles were grafted into. Likewise, they weren't to over identify with the zealot movement that some Israelites were still apart of. Therefore being subject to the government of Rome was a warning against sedition and not a teaching on complete submission to Rome.