Higher Powers, Romans 13:1-7

by ClassAvenger 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ClassAvenger

  I was very bored and after reading some stuff from David Reed on the flip-flopping of the higher powers in Romans 13, I decided to check it out myself in the publications (not that I doubted it, but just wanted to get the full quotes). I put what I found into a Word file for my personal information, but I guess I'll post it here since I have nothing better to do with it. I guess this has already been covered extensively, but I'll put it here for those that yet haven't seen it. Here it goes:

  One of the many doctrinal errors that the Society has made is the Higher Powers in Romans 13:1-7. It has flip flopped on this doctrine only to come back to where it started. The Watchtower gives its own explanation on erroneous doctrines:

  It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating??wishy-washy??about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons? (The Watchtower, May 15, 1976 [page 298])

  The Watchtower has clearly done what it condemns in this publication. The organization at first, along with the traditional Christian belief, agreed that ?the higher powers? are secular governments and rulers. A decade after World War I it switched to saying that ?the higher powers? were God and Jesus. The former view was condemned among the ?false doctrines and practices? that had to be ?cleaned out of the organization? (Jehovah Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959 [page 91]). In 1962 the organization adopted again the former teaching, that ?the higher powers? were the secular governments. This can be proved in the book Jehovah?s Witnesses ? Proclaimers of God?s Kingdom. On pages 146-147 under the heading ?The Light Shines More and More? it cites the 1962 adjustment:

  For many years the Bible Students had taught that ?the higher powers? (KJ) were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. Why? In The Watch Towers of June 1 and June 15, 1929, a variety of secular laws were cited, and it was shown that what was permitted in one land was forbidden in another. Attention was also drawn to secular laws that required people to do what God prohibited or that forbade what God commanded his servants to do. Because of their earnest desire to show respect for the supreme authority of God, it seemed to the Bible Students that ?the higher powers? must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. They still obeyed secular laws, but the emphasis was on obedience to God first. That was an important lesson, one that fortified them during the years of world turmoil that followed. But they did not clearly understand what Romans 13:1-7 was saying.

  Years later, a careful reanalysis of the scripture was made, along with its context and its meaning in the light of all the rest of the Bible. As a result, in 1962 it was acknowledged that ?the superior authorities? are the secular rulers, but with the help of the New World Translation, the principle of relative subjection was clearly discerned. This did not call for any major change in the attitude of Jehovah?s Witnesses toward the governments of the world, but it did correct their understanding of an important portion of the Scriptures. In the process, there was opportunity for the Witnesses individually to consider carefully whether they were truly living up to their responsibilities toward both God and the secular authorities. This clear understanding of ?the superior authorities? has served as a protection to Jehovah?s Witnesses, especially in those lands where surges of nationalism and clamoring for greater freedom have resulted in outbreaks of violence and the formation of new governments.

  The book does not tell readers that this was a return to the previously rejected interpretation. This can also be seen in the book on pages 189-190. The discussion is unrelated to ?the higher powers? subject and was maybe written by a different author. Under the heading, ?Should Religion Mix In Politics?? it admits:

  At that time they understood that ?the higher powers,? referred to at Romans 13:1-7 (KJ), were the secular rulers.

  If you read above the heading, the last sentence of the previous paragraph states that the period it is talking about is World War I, starting around 1914:

  What was the situation in the period leading up to World War I?

  This is the same conclusion that they supposedly reached in 1962 as new light. The Watchtower then denies they have every flip-flopped in their teachings:

  At times explanations given by Jehovah?s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as ?tacking.? By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination in spite of contrary winds.

  These adjustments in doctrines do not show the ?light getting brighter?, but a failure to interpret the Scriptures. It seems more like the Watchtower is turning the light on and off.
• 

  blondie

  This is one of those triple flipflops.

  1879-1929 secular governments

  1929-1962 Jehovah and Jesus

  1962-present secular governments
• 

  heathen

  I always thought it was satan ruling the secular governments and the world . I think the apostle Paul writings were tampered with big time . How could it make sense that at one point he says that God has appointed the man made governments over mankind when jesus clearly said his kingdom was no part of this world ?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Romans was not written by Paul or should I more cautiously say it was not written by the person or school that wrote the original draft of 1 Cor and Gal. It has been summized by text comparison that it may have been a a sermon then rewritten as a letter to the congo in Ephesus. The title and obvious acquiecence to the Roman authorities was necessary to separate the Church from the original Jewish Christian movement which had drawn attention as anti-Roman.
• 

  ozziepost

  In commenting on this "flip flop" a past 'Tower stated that it had not resulted in harm to the brothers but rather served as a protection to them.

  How easily they excuse their own sins!

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  shotgun

  I do not believe it was a mistake class avenger.....It was Rutherford solidifying his grip on all followers. If you note most publications at this time equate obedience to the Org with obedience to God. One more step they made to become a cult.
• 

  heathen

  Pete --- I would like to know where you got your information here. It is clear that the romans persecuted the early christian church because of the emperor worship and the lack of patriotic ferver over the gladiator blood baths . I find what you said to be of interest and would like see some verified proof of the letter to romans being tampered with . I based my belief on the bible contradictions . Some of the apostle pauls writings appear to be contrary to what jesus said to the original 12 apostles .
• 

  ClassAvenger

  Thanks for the dates Blondie.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Heathen here is a copy of an email about the subject of Romans. It may help explain.
  

  Groups Home - Yahoo! - Help

  
  
  

  Welcome, xxxxxxxxx

  Start a Group - My Groups - Account Info - Sign Out

  Home Messages Post Chat Files Photos Links Database Promote = Owner = Moderator = Online		Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines
  	Message 14751 of 16045 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg #

  From: "Jay Raskin" <jayraskin1@y...> Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 6:22 pm Subject: Address the Point, Point to the Address was Re: El Gabal.

  ADVERTISEMENT Hi John and Klaus --- In [email protected], pessy@c... wrote: > johnabrowus writes: > > > > How do Marcion, Justin Martyr, and the Epistle to the Romans fit into > > this theory? snip snip (nice points I agree with) > > The epistle to the Romans of course appears highly interpolated, > Detering's reconstruction attempt shows that the volume of the first > 5 chapters got more than doubled. snip snip > > Klaus Schilling One might also look at Van Manheim's "Romans (Epistle)," in Encyclopaedia Biblica (New York: Macmillan, 4 Vols., 1899-1903), Vol. 4, 4127-4145. At http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/vanrom.html He gives various arguments against the Pauline authenticity of the Letter to the Romans. The most obvious proof he writes about this way: ******* One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in 64 C.E. is to be found in the manner in which the question of the rejection of Israel is handled in chs. 9-11. That question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers as long as Jerusalem was still standing, and there was nothing to support the vague expectation of its approaching overthrow which some entertained. The allusions to the great events of the year 70, the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations which connected themselves with this event are manifest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly in 11:11-22, about the downfall of the Jews (to paraptôma autôn), about the branches that have been broken off (exeklasthêsan kladoi) and the "cutting off" (apotomia) which has come upon those who are fallen (epi tous pesontas), can be under no misapprehension on this point. ******** The writer slips up by glorying in the downfall of the Jews and forgets it did not happen in Paul's supposed lifetime. Godspeed gives even more obvious and importance evidence regarding the forging of the letter Peter Kirby has been kind enough to put Edgar Goodspeed's 1935 "Introduction to the New Testament online. It contains a nice chapter on this Epistle. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch06.htm **** Chapter 16 is a letter of introduction for Phoebe, an assistant of the church at Cenchreae, who is about to make a journey, apparently to Rome. There is nothing impossible or improbable about that, of course, Aquila and Priscilla had come from Rome to Corinth and established their business first there and then at Ephesus, Acts 18:1, 2, 18, 19, 26. Here in Rom. 16:3 they are mentioned as at the place which Phoebe was about to visit. It would seem that they have gone back to Rome, though at last accounts they were in Ephesus, I Cor. 16:19, where one congregation met in their house. The fact that greetings are sent to Epaenetus, the first man in Asia to turn to Christ, 16:5, rather suggests, however, that Ephesus is Phoebe's destination, not Rome, unless he too has, like Aquila and Priscilla, betaken himself to Rome. The extraordinary number of persons greeted in the chapter, twenty-six in all, is surprising if it is addressed to Rome. Not that Paul might now know that many people in a city he had never visited (he has never been in Rome) but because he is so familiar with their domestic or religious groupings; he knows that Rufus has his mother with him, that Philologus and Julia are together. Nereus has his sister with him, and they form the nucleus of a Christian congregation. So do Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, and Hermas; a group of brothers meets with them. No less than twenty-four people?men and women?are greeted by name, not to mention Rufus' mother and Nereus' sister, 16:13, 15. The Christian record of some of these people is also emphasized. Some of them had worked very hard in the Lord's service: Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis. Paul knows of three different congregations and the individuals that they rally around, perhaps in whose houses they meet, 16:5, 14, 15. Some of the people greeted are old comrades of Paul's in missionary work; some have shared imprisonment with him, 16:7. All this makes it seem extremely probable that Paul is not writing to a strange city but to his 75 well-known and greatly loved Ephesus. Acts records that, on his final journey to the East, he had a special farewell for the elders of Ephesus, 20:17-38. Having just spent more than two years in Ephesus, Acts 19:8-10, he would, of course, have just such knowledge about people and groups there as chapter 16 exhibits and, if a friend were crossing at once to Ephesus, would naturally send .them his greetings. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how he could know so much in detail about the Christians in Rome, or how so many of his old friends could so suddenly have removed to Rome. The warning against departing from "the instruction you were given," 16:17, fits Rome poorly if Paul has never been there, and on the whole it is very probable that chapter 16 was written not to Rome but to Ephesus. Short journeys are more numerous and hence more probable than long ones, and it is likely that Phoebe was making the short voyage to Ephesus, not the longer journey to Rome. It may be added that Cenchreae was the Aegean port and slightly favors contacts with Ephesus rather than with Rome. Not that a resident of Cenchreae might not undertake a journey to Rome; only that a woman of Cenchreae would be rather more likely to have contacts?business or social?with Ephesus than with Rome. The separation of the bulk of the sixteenth chapter from the rest of Romans has very recently received striking support in the Ann Arbor papyrus manuscript of Paul's letters, [1] published by Professor Henry A. [1] Ten leaves of this very ancient papyrus codex of Paul's letters were published by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon in London in 1934 (Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Fasc. III). Thirty others from the same codex were published at Ann Arbor by Professor Henry A. Sanders in 1935, and forty-six others, also from the same codex, have been published by Sir Frederic from the Chester Beatty Collection, in 1936, as Fasc. III, Suppl. Sanders in 1935 and dated by Wilcken and Gerstinger about A.D. 200. The Michigan leaves include Romans and place the great doxology, 16:25-27, at the end of chapter 15. This so fully accords with the main facts about the sixteenth chapter that it may be said to complete the evidence. The Letter to the Romans ends with the fifteenth chapter and the doxology; the sixteenth chapter is not a part of it; it is a letter of introduction, one of those letters so frequent in the ancient world, referred to by Paul in II Cor. 3:1. There are numerous examples of them in the Greek papyri, [1] and Christians must have made use of them constantly, for in moving about the ancient world, where the inns were so often places of ill-repute and questionable morals, the Christians on their journeys formed the practice of stopping with some Christian brother, to whom they carried letters of introduction. III John is such a letter. So Romans, chapter 16, makes Phoebe known to Paul's old friends, the Christians of Ephesus. That it contains so little in the way of instruction, coupled with the references to instruction previously given, verses 17-20, is natural enough in view of the fact that Paul has so lately come from there by way of Troas and Macedonia. [2] ***** Okay, so the end of the letter was originally addressed to Epheseans. The question is why would someone attach this material to a letter addressed to the Romans? Answer: There was no letter by Paul addressed to the Romans. At the time Marcion put out Paul's letters, nobody had the slightest idea that a Christian Church existed at Rome. While possibly he forged parts contained in this letter, Marcion did not forge a letter of Paul addressed to the Romans. The forger wanted people to believe that a Church in Rome existed in Paul`s time. It is doubtful that anybody pre 200 would do this. The forger took pre-existent material and put it together specifically for the purpose of making people believe a Church in Rome existed. This accounts for the curious cheerful yet passionless style of the discussion and the use of such extensive Ephesean material. In this case we are dealing with a letter that is nothing but "fuller" so to speak. The Forger doesn't need to have Paul write anything urgent or important, he just needs to have Paul write something/antthing to the Roman Church. He just needs the material to sound like Paul. The Forger babbles on pointlessly about the differences of Jews and Christians, using material he finds readily available and simply goes on and on enjoying his work of deception. This explains why the audience cannot get any real sense of Paul's relationship with the people he is purportedly writing to. One moment, they're gentiles Paul hardly knows, the next moment they're a mixture of Jews and Gentiles who he has hung out with extensively. This is a strange case where the entire point of the text is the address. Warmly, Jay Raskin

  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date 14767 Address the Point, Point to the Address Jay Raskin jayraskin1 Wed 7/9/2003

  Message 14751 of 16045 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg #

  Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines

  ---

  Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines - Help - Ad Feedback
• 

  heathen

  pete--- That's an interesting post , thanks for putting that up. I did read thru romans 9-11 and can see some of what the author was saying to hold a fair argument . The part of the downfall of the jews I think is more about falling from the grace they once had as a chosen race and not about the destruction of jerusalem. Jesus did clearly prophesy about the destruction of the temple so it is possible thru association with the other apostles was forewarned as well . I do have a big problem with the romans 13:1-7 tho .