Imagine if many wanted their former empires back
Facebook Image
I am opposed to imperialism and colonization, philosophically. But in a very connected issue, trying to reason who land really belongs to historically, and how biblical Christians should deal with it, can often be very tricky.
Monday, October 07, 2019 Honour The King
Referenced with edits
Consider...
1 Peter 2:17 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [a]king.
Footnotes: a 1 Peter 2:17 Or emperor
Romans 13: 1-2 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 13 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Footnotes: a Romans 13:1 Or soul b Romans 13:1 Lit by c Romans 13:2 Lit he who
Concerning Romans 13, F.F. Bruce writes that human government is a divine ordinance and has the powers of coercion and commendation which it has been given by God. By Christians obeying the state, they are in a sense, serving God. Bruce (1987: 221). Bruce reasons that the Apostle Paul does not deal with the issue of unrighteous government here, but as with Acts 5: 29, Christians are to obey God and Christ and not the state when the state claims divine honours. Bruce (1987: 221).
Cranfield explains that in Romans 13, Paul is not asking for an uncritical obedience to the state, but rather that God has placed the state in authority over persons. Cranfield (1992: 321).
To maintain law and order, I would state.
So, New Testament Christians were to obey the Roman Empire and not seek revolution, even in occupied Israel. Biblical Christians were to live for the Gospel in peace.
Romans 12: 18 New American Standard Bible (NASB) If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all people.
Mounce states that in Romans 13, that there is a divinely sanctioned role of government and that Christians are responsible to that government. It did not make any difference that the governing authorities were secular. God is the sole source of authority and established the authority for the state. If the government oversteps its rightful domain, then according to Mounce the Christian should not obey the ruler and he notes this was done in Acts 4: 9 and 5: 29.
Does this allow any philosophical and theological room for armed, military, revolutionary activity by biblical Christians?
Perhaps where it can be argued that actual law and order is not being maintained at key points? Such as with the genocide that was taking place in Nazi Germany? But the Roman Empire was executing Christian believers during the New Testament era.
Tricky issues.
Concerning 1 Peter 2 13-15, Barclay explains that the concept of anarchy by the Christian is far from New Testament thought. Barclay reasons what belongs to Caesar (the state) should be given to it, and what belongs to God should be given to God (Matthew 22: 21). Barclay (1976: 205).
Both Cranfield and Barclay mention that Paul is discussing the concept of submitting to an authoritarian state, as in the Roman Empire of the New Testament era. Barclay (1976: 206) Cranfield (1992: 321). Barclay correctly point out in my view that in our modern West the need for Christians to participate in democratic government as it is for and by the people, at least idealistically. Barclay (1976: 206).
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
