Romans 13

by pomegranate 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pomegranate

  Rom 13:1
  13:1 Everyone [INCLUDING BROOKLYN AND ELDERS] must submit himself to the governing authorities,

  ***OUR governing USA authorities say "CHILD MOLESTATION is a SERIOUS CRIME FOR OUR USA GOVERNING AUTHORITIES SYSTEM TO HANDLE." Hand them over TO US!!

  But, JW's DO NOT SUBMIT. No, rather, they defy these authorities. They DEFY and REBEL against God to his VERY FACE!

  Rom 13:2
  2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,
  
  Scriptually, JW's are REBELS AGAINST GOD...they DEFY what God PLAINLY SAYS regarding SUBMISSION TO THESE AUTHORITES so they can PUNISH.

  Rom 13:3
  3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
  
  But JW's don't want "those who do wrong" child molestors to have the terror that God wants them to have by HIS DIVINELY WILLED USA SECULAR AUTHORITIES. Nooooo! They want to protect them from the TERROR & PUNISHMENT that God WILLS and WANTS for the lousy scum bag molestors to experience.

  This is OUTRIGHT SIMPLE GOVERNMENTAL DEFIANCE.

  Read on you defiant JW's...read on:
  
  Rom 13:3-5
  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant , an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
  
  Dance around this one BROOKLYN.
• 

  Elsewhere

  That is a very good point regarding the JWs... They have too much of an US against THEM mentality.

  At the same time I can't help but wonder how that reasoning fits in with 1 Corinthians 6...

  6 Does anyone of YOU that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? 2 Or do YOU not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by YOU , are YOU unfit to try very trivial matters? 3 Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? 4 If, then, YOU do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that YOU put in as judges? 5 I am speaking to move YOU to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among YOU that will be able to judge between his brothers, 6 but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers?

  7 Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for YOU that YOU are having lawsuits with one another. Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be defrauded? 8 To the contrary, YOU wrong and defraud, and YOUR brothers at that.

  One scripture demands subjection to the authorities* while the other calls them "unrighteous" and forbids their use. Has the god of the bible instituted an "unrighteous" system and then demanded that it's followers subject themselves to this unrighteous authority?

  Does anyone have any comments on this? How is this reconciled?

  *Rom 13:2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,

  Edited by - Elsewhere on 16 July 2002 22:59:43
• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  6 Does anyone of YOU that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? 2 Or do YOU not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by YOU , are YOU unfit to try very trivial matters? 3 Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? 4 If, then, YOU do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that YOU put in as judges? 5 I am speaking to move YOU to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among YOU that will be able to judge between his brothers, 6 but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers?

  7 Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for YOU that YOU are having lawsuits with one another. Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be defrauded? 8 To the contrary, YOU wrong and defraud, and YOUR brothers at that.

  I'll take a shot..

  Doesn't the bible state that if you have a problem with your brother or sister, to go and talk that out.. If that doesn't work, bring one or two with you, in hopes that you can win your brother back.. If that still doesn't work then aren't you supposed to treat him/her as you would anyone from the nations? At that point, do you still consider him/her your brother/sister? And at that point, wouldn't it be ok to seek retribution?

  Don't sue first... But at some point they say to "cleanse" the congregation.. At that point, I believe he is no longer your brother (Treat him like you would a man of the nations, or a tax collector)..

  I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't know the scriptures off hand, but how's that for an explanation?

  If it's a small matter, forgive him/her without any issue, hold no grudge, and move on.. If it's a matter that you feel is large enough to resolve, work it out as brothers and sisters first, and give every attempt to him/her to repent and ask for forgiveness. If that works, you've won your brother/sister.. If that doesn't work, then you have to make a call based on your conscience.. Can you live with the injustice that was done to you? Do you still wish to consider him/her your brother/sister? If the answer is yes, then again, forgive him/her, drop the matter, and hold no grudge.. If the answer is no, then you treat him as a man/woman of the nations, and at that point s/he is no longer your brother/sister, and then you can seek retribution in Ceasar's system...

  Just my opinion, I've been known to be wrong, and I'm sure someone here will point out my flawed logic soon !!!
• 

  cruzanheart

  Here's my thought: Paul was writing to the Romans when he told them to respect authority. Rome was the center of legal authority in his world, and it would have been prudent for him to uphold that. Probably, too, they had a more organized form of justice similar to our court systems today. He was writing to the Corinthians when he talked about not going to court against your brother. Corinth was Sin City back then, very decadent, so perhaps Paul was speaking to them what they needed to hear. Perhaps they were all filing frivolous lawsuits about barking dogs and double-parking the chariot and he was trying to get them to settle out of court (sorry, bad pun). I'm trying to read the Bible lately from the standpoint of where the writer was at that time, and it's given me some fascinating insights. I got a chuckle after reading Paul's epistles and then reading Peter's scripture where he says that Paul writes things that are "hard to understand" - the difference between a lawyer and a fisherman!

  Nina
• 

  Dizzy Cat

  I think you are right Nina, it is important to view the scriptures in context and gain insight through understanding the age of the text and certainly the setting.

  JWs take the view (as we know) that you submit to God first, then the authorities .... which can be backed up using Bible law and specific examples from scripture.

  Now whether we agree with that principle ourselves, is another matter and the JWs would say - a matter of faith - ...
• 

  pomegranate

  You guys are missing the point...LOOK!

  "...are YOU unfit to try very trivialmatters?"

  Paul is plainly talking about VERY TRIVIAL MATTERS.

  trivial (tr
  adj.

  1. Of little significance or value.
  2. Ordinary; commonplace.

  Anyone here believe pedophilia and child molestastion would be considered VERY TRIVIAL matters by the Apostle Paul please
  raise their hand.

  Has anyone heard of FRIVILOUS LAW SUITS? That's what Paul is talking about here. Stupid, petty, ridiculous back and forth bickerings (probably dealing with BUSINESS, as that's where most come from) that should be EASILY settled within the ranks of the congregation. But they weren't. They were taking each other to court for STooooooooPID TRIVIAL reasons.

  Paul smacked them around for it.

  Murder, Rape, Pedophilia, Physical Abuse...you can be sure the Apostle Paul would have dragged that individual right to the SECULAR authorities himself.

  Edited by - pomegranate on 17 July 2002 10:12:46
• 

  abbagail

  I'm with Pomegranate on this one. Between the first post and the last, I was already thinking that the Corinthians scripture had to do with the trivial stuff of life, that CAN get out of hand if people are not being reasonable (example: modern day talk shows, Jerry Springer, Judge Judy - how foolish do 99% of those people look for going to court over trivial stuff? How much moreso should Christians feel foolish for doing so. I think that was Paul's point in Corinthians.)

  However, Romans 13 is quite compelling in his clarity and seems to be talking about more serious matters. God's Avengers for those doing wrong. Thanks for writing it all out for us, Pomegranate. Earlier tonight I was thinking about that same exact scripture when reading other threads on the Two Witnesses Rule and Deut.19:15 and Mt. 18:16, and I was thinking this same thing, i.e., why does the WTS not consider Romans 13??? (Ooops! I already know the answer: Because they say the Two Witnesses Rule applies to the spiritual situation in the cong, whereas Romans deals with non-spiritual situations outside of the cong).

  Thanks cruzanheart for sharing your enthusiasm over your bible studies. It's true I don't always think in terms of "back then" when reading the scriptures. A 'fun" thing I've done a few times the past few days which really makes the scriptures "hit home," is take these scriptures applicable to the scandals and inserting the modern-day GB in appropriate places and then read it like that, and see how it looks/feels/sounds (such as Daniel's handwriting on the wall; and Ezekiel's man with the inkhorn and the other men with the clubs who do the killing; and Jesus' "mercy and not sacrifice" message along with his supposedly 2-witness rule (which the WTS says) re: child abuse.)

  Getting too tired. Time for bed. Night all.

  GRITS