As a religious person, I have been intrigued by some time, when I hear a particular passage of the New Testament quoted. I'm not going to preach a sermon, here, but rather raise a question as to whom and how this really applies. I heard yet another example of this in the news this morning. Romans 13: 1, 2 is continuously quoted to anyone that would dare disagree with the powers that be, and it is used in reference to secular powers when it's quoted by clergy. I find that interesting and I find it intriguing. Here is the passage. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G~d: the powers that be are ordained of G~d. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of G~d: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. First considering the fact that the Apostle Paul wrote this book of Romans to the church in Rome. And it so happens that Paul was put to death by the Roman government. So, how was it that this came to be? And why isn't it questioned any further? Paul told his congregants to be subject to the "higher powers," for the powers were given their authority by G~d. So how is it that Paul faced the death penalty when he was being compliant? Or did he simply not practice what he preached? Or has this, like so much of the New Testament, been taken out of context? Would John the Baptist have preached his adultery sermon to Herod, if Romans had already been written? Well, let's move on from Paul into later times. From right before the beginning of the fifth century CE until the middle of the 15th, Constantine's power was handed down from Pope to Pope without question, until men like Martin Luther led the protestant reformation. So, is every Protestant Christian being disobedient to those words in Romans 13? I'm sure they would say "no." Moving right along. It just wasn't long until King James, decided to have his scribes interpret a Bible that gave him more authority than the Pope. Well, so then who was resisting? Who has more G~d ordained power, a king or a pope. How do we know the scribes wrote it correctly, since they certainly did not want to receive "damnation?" By now, we have moved through time, to 1611. That was the year the "authorized version" of the King James Bible is dated. Just another 150 years there's a new continent of people that have decided they aren't going to do things according to the mandate of the King, and yet, this country was supposedly founded on Biblical principle. What about the Revolutionary War in regard to Romans 13? I must, of course, then question the current interpretation of this passage, and I do. I think many have overlooked the obvious, and opted for cowardly compliance. The Bible says we are not to intentionally break laws that hurt other people, but it also clearly states that man's ways are not G~d's ways. It just breaks my heart when I hear preachers be a party to the intimidation practices of a man made government. It makes me wonder how many crusading governments, historically, have used this Scripture to keep their subjects in subjection . . . Obviously G~d has allowed evil rulers, and His people have acknowledged their authority, but were willing to pay the price to stand in G~d's truth.
. . . our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment