I struggle with these verses every time I come across them, and I suspect that I am not alone in that regard.  Essentially, if our country was founded justly and if our chief reason for bearing arms is to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, primarily from tyranny, then how can we justify that position in face of Romans 13:1-7?  In my head, these verses seem contrary to justice, and at face value, they appear to contradict American values that Christian/Right Americans espouse.  However, the Word cannot be wrong; therefore, either my understanding of it is wrong or fundamental American values are wrong.

Finally, I may have found something that reconciles this seeming conflict in Tim Gordon's Catholic Republic.  I will post a review of the book when I'm finished reading it, but for now, I'll offer this link: Aquinas on the Right to Resist.

Curious how you all reconcile these verses with American/libertarian (small l)/anti-tyrannical beliefs.

13 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.
2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.
3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.
4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.
7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

Acts 5:29  "But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."

We are to be lawful and compliant with the rules and laws established by men.  That is the foundation of civil society.  But ultimately, when those rules or laws conflict with God's, we are to obey God rather than man.

Our Founders believed that we were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If government infringes upon those God-given rights, are we to obey those rules of men, which are in opposition to the rights given to us by God?

I am currently reading the AENT and the notation for Romans I found interesting.

What I take from that is that unless the authorities over me want me to do something that goes against the commands and teachings of God, I should obey them.

Well, since you asked.

These verses have always troubled me as well especially the way we in the American Christian Church Inc have been taught them.  It was a very difficult transition to make between what Paul was saying in Chapter 12 and then switching gears to All Praise and Honor to the Government-do what they tell you to do.  He doesn't say that anywhere else.....in fact....He said quite the opposite so it's really inconsistent and confusing unless.....there is some reason to teach it as "obey" the Government (because they license and "allow" us to be churches?) When you throw that idea into the pot and start to study for yourself you might come to some different conclusions.   (This is where I usually get put on ignore...)

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that Paul wasn't talking about civil authorities in these verses.  I believe that within the context of all his other writings and even within these verses he was talking about church authorities/church or ecumenical leadership NOT civil.  His letter was addressed to those; "called of Jesus Christ" (1:6) and; "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"  He was not writing to the Roman Government.  Rome didn't know much about or even care about this obscure cult of Jesus at first....but Paul had been brought up within a rigid religious framework that HAD to reject Roman authority (and all other authority) as pagan.  Why would he now support it?
(This is where I get branded a heretic)

If you're still reading here are my reasons.

The words used in Verse 1 that reads; "governing (hyperecho) authorities (exousia)"  means; one who rises above, is superior in rank, authority, or power. We read "governing authorities" and think instantly of BigFed.gov because that's all we know (and have been taught). However, All of these words, terms, and ideas can be applied to leadership in the church-(it would especially apply to Paul)  The second part of verse 1 says; "For there is no authority (exousia) except from GOD and those which exist are established by God.   That  word "authority" in these verses is can mean "authority over mankind" and/or was symbolic of the veil that women wore as a symbol of authority over them by their husbands but can also be applied to church leadership.  I believe that the idea Paul was really communicating was that GOD places the people He needs in His Church in positions of authority and if you "resist authority" (Verse 2) you are resisting the ordinance of God. This is a completely consistent thought from the writings of Paul. Paul may even have been polishing his resume.

In verse 3 the word that most often is translated "Ruler" can also simply mean "chief, prince, magistrate, or "leader"  Just as Christ is the head/leader of The Church..... The same word is used for authority as it is above ....and it can mean "power" or "liberty".  Again....we have God appointed leaders/servants in the Church (Paul for example) to guide us, empower us, and help set us free in Christ.

Verse 4 the word Minister can also be translated as "servant" or "deacon".

Verse 5 The word subjection means to "submit".  It's the same word and concept that Paul uses when he tells wives to "submit or "subject themselves" to their husbands as to the Lord" in Eph. 5. The word is actually a military term used to describe the fighting formations of the day where you "submitted" yourself to the guy next to you and protected his vulnerable weak side and the guy next to you did the same.  In the context of marriage Christians are to submit one to another....protecting each others vulnerabilities. Husbands are to love (protecting and sacrificing) their wives and wives are to submit (coming along side in formation moving in the same direction protecting her husbands vulnerable exposed flank).  The movie 300 (about the Spartans) has a perfect example when the crippled guy wants to fight and the leader dude tells him how the formation of Spartans fights and that the crippled dude can't raise his shield high enough to protect the guy next to him....so he can't be in the formation or he will be the weak link......(do not be unequally yoked....)

Verse 6. The word taxes is the word most often translated tribute. A tribute is a sign of respect or admiration....it does not necessarily mean a tax in the context that we mean it today. (now I'm stepping in it)

Verse 7 Paul says the same thing. Render all that is due THEM (individuals).  Tribute to whom tribute is due....custom to whom (again an individual) custom is due, fear (reverence) to whom reverence is due and honor to whom honor is due....

Verse 8 OWE NOTHING TO ANYONE EXCEPT LOVE .....for he who loves (agape) his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  He is talking about individuals selected by God to be servant leaders in the church.

Paul was a product of a religious system of Judaism that abhorred Rome and they had their own parallel civil and court system.  A lot like places in that part of the world still have.

Reading the scripture within this context makes much more sense when you consider that in I Cor. 6:1 Paul asks "why do you dare to go to court before the unrighteous and not before the saints? The "unrighteous" are the civil authorities that he is supposed to be supporting in Romans 13.

In Philippians 3:20 Paul says that; "our citizenship is in heaven".....

In the general historical context of the times I also wonder why Paul would condone and support a civil authority that was arresting and killing Christians?

Well, that's my .02 worth.

I wrestled with this passage a long time. Then it occurred to me: who has the power in the country?

We the people. We aren't subject to them. It's the other way around. As long as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, I'm comfortable defending it and submitting to Romans 13.

In fact, I don't want to stand before God and have Him ask, "What did you do? I put you in charge."

powerful insights given by BTccw, Ogive, oldArmy and freddd

Thank you, sir.  In my heart, I agree.  However, at face value, I don't quite follow.  Please trust that I am not arguing with you; just expressing my thought process.

We must obey God rather than men.  That makes perfect sense.  How do we know what His commands are?  Scripture.  God spoke to us through Scripture; therefore, we look to It for direction.  Scripture says, "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.  Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."  It makes no qualifiers of any sort, and not only is it clear, but it uses tautology and doubles down lest there be any doubt.

"And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's."

Render therefore to King George/Bernie the things that are King George's?Bernie's: and to God the things that are God's.

Obviously, Jesus is avoiding a trap, but in that response, he acknowledges Caesar's authority/power, which He gave him as explained in Romans 13.

Again, not trying to argue; just explaining why I have trouble accepting that.

I appreciate the thoughtful post.  I have not seen it elsewhere.  What disciplines/denominations hold that view?

With regard to your second to last line, St. Paul also shows obedience and respect to the high priest in Acts 23:4-5, obviously, well after the Resurrection, "And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God?  And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people."  He did not resist Rome or promote resistance either.

In a well-functioning republic that makes sense, but in the course of history, a well-functioning republic is a rarity if not a unicorn.  Monarchies and tyrannies are far more common.  It doesn't make sense that Scripture would give general commands based on exceptional situations.

Logically speaking, I agree with you, but I think it would take a pretty big leap to interpret Romans 13 in that light.

These are interesting thoughts but expand them to the world and think about this from the perspective of a NON American believer...someone who does NOT have the Constitution maybe someone from China, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Nazi Germany. Now what?

Does Romans 13 (the "traditional" understanding-Big Gov) still make sense or is it more universally applied as church leadership?

Verse13: 8 is the key and summary of this passage and our lives as Christians.

I disagree with your assertion that Jesus was acknowledging the authority of Caeser. To do so would be to agree with Caesar that he was related to and therefore one more of the many pagan gods of Rome. Jesus (and the other Jews) obviously wouldn't do that.  Not only was Jesus avoiding a trap but His point was;  IT ALL BELONGS to the one true GOD and those who came to trap Him had to acknowledge that or risk being ostracized or worse.  Psalm 24:1, 89:11,50:12. The Herodians and Pharisees would have known these verses by heart. None of it "belongs" to Caesar. Matthew 22, Luke 20, Mark 12.

The poll tax was a Roman law not Jewish and it was hated along with those that collected (extorted) it. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to plainly say-yeah, go ahead and pay it but He didn't because NO Jewish person did. (Knowing their hypocrisy-Mk 12:15) The coin had a graven image of Caesar and the word "devine" on it. A violation of the 2'd commandment.
Even the Temple tax/tribute in Matt 17Jesus declares Himself and His followers exempt but for appearances (and the chance to once more prove He is not just a man) has Peter go down and snag a fish....LOL
So Jesus is more clearly saying.....go fish Temple tax dude and Caesar...you're not what you think you are.

I've been involved in a very diverse and eclectic group of people throughout my decades long time as a believer and follower of Jesus. My thoughts and ideas are probably not unique but that is where I'm at at the moment in my thinking and it makes the most sense to me. I'm still learning.
Nothing inconsistent with Paul giving tribute to the high priest. I doubt Paul (after his conversion) thought or spoke ill of many people. I should follow his example better.
Neither Paul nor Jesus resisted Rome in the traditional understanding of the world but Christianity has been the most radical and revolutionary transformative force the world has ever experienced. God's ways are not man's ways.

I don’t know, but I know for absolute certain that God doesn’t want people to submit to forced abortion, follow orders to murder Jews, etc. There’s obviously a limit.

I'm not sure where you're objection is?

I'm reminded of Daniel chapter 2:21-22 where he has a
Vision and says.

21 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings;  he gives wisdom to the wise o and knowledge to those who have understanding; 22 he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. 23To you, O r God of my fathers, s I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.”

And if I'm not mistaken there are other similar verses.

So from it all I take it to submit to all authorities over you, so long as doing so isn't contradictory to His will. (Teachings, examples, commands etc.) Be that in the church, government or local gun club etc.

Obviously as those things strongly contradict His teachings, that's where we stand with God over men and are justified in doing so.

Right, and that's the point of my original post.  Stated in another way, if Jesus, Paul, and countless early Christians did not resist with physical force, but submitted to the authorities as Romans 13 directs, what gave our founding fathers the right to resist King George and what gives us the right to resist a tyrannical government with physical force?  King George was not forcing anyone to have abortions or do any of the other examples mentioned here.

I agree because there are direct commandments that prohibit murder.  But when the tyrannical authorities come after you, an innocent, do you do as Romans 13 requires and as Jesus did, or do you fight?  If you fight, wouldn't you violate Romans 13?

Not to nitpick, but this is significant enough to point out: All abortions are forced abortions.  The murdered babies did not have a choice in their killing.

I have been struggling with this for months. Where I have landed so far hinges on this question. If ever anyone is coming for my life, why? That why is critical. If it's because I'm a follower of Yeshua, and refuse to toe the line some authority demands because it violates God's teachings and commands, then I'm to be a martyr, and I should be honored to be so.

If it's for any other reason, I should make every practical attempt to not have to use lethal force to defend myself, however I believe I'm justified in doing so if I must do so to prevent myself from being murdered.

That makes sense.  God removing and setting up kings is consistent with Romans 13; all power comes from Him.  Therefore, the question remains: Why resist the authority even when it is unjust?  The Babylonians were a murderous and unjust empire, yet Jeremiah discourages people from resisting them.  That seems perfectly consistent to me.  Why should our founding fathers than have resisted King George, and why should we resist an unjust government when the Bible expects us to submit?

Amen on martyrdom being an honor.

Do you think the Vendeans were wrong in resisting religious persecution by an atheist state in France,  or Cristeros in Mexico, and so on?

Who says they should have or that we should? First, what's done is done and you nor I had any part in it. I do believe a case can be made for our founding fathers though, but it's not one I feel well suited to make on a whim. I'd just point to the flip flopping of state religion with the monarchy and the Catholic church.

God is unchanging, the state religion flip flopping and Catholic church, not so much. I think the reformation may have indirectly effected the actions of the founding father's.

I'm not informed/educated on those events so I really can't comment.

Fear not what man can do to your body but what God can do to your spirit.

Amen.

The declaration of independence does, which seems contrary to Scripture.

You may want to read up on them at your leisure.  They're inspiring events of heroism and martyrdom in the face of persecution.  Essentially, they're more recent versions of Maccabees.

What those before me did I had no choice in. But you make an assertion and I'd like to understand how you arrive at it more clearly as it may help understand. Are you referencing the self evident truths they speak of?

What's the real issue? You're clearly wrestling over something. Please lay it all out. I edited and re-redit this post so sorry if it seems scattered.

Wow. Thank you for helping me get some direction on citing my arguments with the wife’s pastor. I had made similar arguments but not as refined

Sometimes GOD allows non-believers to become powerful and with that power comes abuse.  Generally speaking, this is permitted to remind believers that HE is GOD and you are not.

My reading of Romans 13 and the US Charter documents is that aborting a tyrannical government with extreme prejudice is consistent with the text.  The US was chartered without a monarch and all oaths of office are sworn to the Constitution.

The Constitution is the ruler, not the administrators.  If it is just under the Constitution, it is simply just.

Evangelicals are so cucked these days.

"Then the terror of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out together as one."

Please relook at the first paragraph in my original post.  I'll streamline it below:

1) Americans (including our founding fathers) believe(d) that a rebellion against England was just.
2) Right/Christian Americans (including our founding fathers) believe(d) that a rebellion is just any time a government becomes tyrannical.
3) Romans 13 seems to be in complete contradiction with that.  It makes no qualifiers for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, unjust governments, inalienable rights, etc.

If St. Paul meant to say that we should only obey just and righteous authorities, he could have easily said that.  But he made it very clear what he meant, and again, used tautology to emphasize the meaning.

Based on Scripture, it seems that we are nation born of pride and disobedience, and that physical resistance to tyranny is not acceptable.  That is what I am wrestling with.

Wither or not that's true, how does that effect your walk with Christ?

I don't know how anyone can extract that out of Romans 13.  Would you care to elaborate?  The US didn't spring into existence out of nothing.  We rebelled against a power.  This rebellion seems in violation of Romans 13, which clearly states that (1) all powers come from God and that (2) we should not resist them.

It affects how I live my life as I am to be in compliance with His will.  If we bear arms to defend against a tyrannical power, and if Scripture commands that we are not resist to powers, then I should rid myself of any arms; except for maybe two pistols for personal protection, which I can share my neighbors per Luke 22:38.

Sorry I thought there was maybe something else.

Ultimately, God is concerned about our immortal souls and obedience to eternal laws.  In the mean time though, we are subject to mortality.  It is a necessary stage in our progression to become more like him.
Mortality is, in some respects, a microcosm of the order of the eternities.  In our eternal state, we will be subject to law and government.  We are learning that pattern here in mortality.  Chaos and anarchy are anathema to God.

God sanctions worldly government.  We cannot live free, happy lives without it.  We cannot progress spiritually without it.  Despite the weaknesses and problems of government by imperfect or even evil people, it is much, much better than anarchy.

The Declaration of Independence captures this concept well.  I believe it is inspired by God.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.… “
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The Constitution is the law in this here land.  Are you advocating for its nullification and a rapprochement with the British Crown?

But the UK formed out of rebellion, so should we seek a rapprochement with the old Romans?
...
...
...
...
...

It is all rebellion and always has been, thus, the need for a savior.

The text says there are consequences to rebellion.  As far as I can tell, history is replete with consequences - good and bad - depending upon your perspective.

Theological lawyering and legalism is absolutely degenerate.

Read: Ecclesiastes 3 and then read the whole book and, then, do it again a few more times.

I just can’t accept that that verse includes all government. I can’t accept that Hitler and company were sanctioned by God.

One thing worth mentioning is it was technically illegal to carry swords in Roman occupied Judea. Yet the apostles were known to carry swords, and Jesus didn’t tell them not to.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

You have to know the difference.

Theological lawyers (Pharisees) always raise a big red warning flag immediately.  This passage is particularly pernicious as it is generously offered to legitimize all variety of injustices just because X sanctioned it.

It is imperative to understand that GOD did not create sin, but part and parcel to the free exercise of worshiping Him, we have free will.  With free will come the choice to disobey, aka sin.  All sin is rebellion.  Sin manifests adverse consequences and externalities.

We can parse this passage.

let every soul
to the higher authorities

huperecho exousia

be subject
for there is no authority except from God
and the authorities existing are appointed by God

The context of this passage is the individual soul, so Paul/we are talking about the spiritual realm.  The higher authorities in the spiritual realm are not evil spirits or men filled with them.  The higher authorities this passage speaks to are the spiritual leaders, elders, of the church.

Paul later goes on to say, in the same way, follow social/secular customs to avoid hardship.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.  Philosophically speaking, there's not much I disagree with.  Depending on you define "inspired by God," I might disagree, but that's probably a subject for a different thread.

Thomas Jefferson also said, "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed… What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Regardless, I think we would agree that Scripture is infallible, and the Declaration of Independence is not.  Why should I accept the founders' stance over what Scripture clearly states in Romans 13?

Thank you for the suggestion.  I think it's been close to four years since I read Ecclesiastes.

No, I don't suggest that undoing what was done centuries ago.  However, if what was done before was wrong or wicked, I don't want to repeat it.  Ecclesiastes 3, "[16] I saw under the sun in the place of judgment wickedness, and in the place of justice iniquity. [17] And I said in my heart: God shall judge both the just and the wicked, and then shall be the time of every thing."

Yes, there is a time for everything, but if the Lord commands us to not use His name in vain, then there's never a time for us to use His name in vain.  If the Lord commands us very clearly in Romans 13 to not resist authorities, then how can there be a time for us to resist authorities?

It says what it says clearly, and it doubles down on it.  That's I have trouble with it, but who am I to argue with Scripture?

If you knew me, you wouldn't trust me to know the difference.  Regardless, where does Scripture say that it's up to me to know the difference?

That's an interesting take, but I think it ends up worse.  Using the spiritual leaders nuance I think makes it worse than the civil authorities understanding because if all spiritual leaders are appointed by God, that would include pagan religions, Buddhism, Islam, etc.  That would be God appointing leaders against Himself, and in violation of the first commandment.  All of a sudden, I am now more comfortable with the civil authorities understanding.

Did you mean to use pernicious to describe Scripture?  Hoping it was a bad autocorrect.

You can't really believe that "the people" have power over our elected officials..

it looks great on a postcard, but the reality is that we are totally and completely subservient to the local, state, and federal government...

Yep.  Let's see:

Life... Abortion.
Liberty... The government will put a bullet in your wife's head over 0.5" of steel.
Pursuit of happiness... Taking my money at the threat of prison or death to redistribute it to others makes me very unhappy.

Ahhh.... got it. I've wondered exactly that same thing. And wrestled with this question A lot....life altering A Lot.
One of the conclusions you reach is that those founding fathers were not acting like Christians right?

And yet like OldArmy  pointed out He removes kings and sets up kings.

Where would the world be if "we" (America) were not here?

Is America really a "Christian" nation? What does that mean?Judaeo-Christian values maybe but there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Lots of rabbit trails to go down.

When we are told to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling Paul wasn't kidding.

My very long bottom line conclusion is that His grace covers what ever conclusion you personally reach. As a Child of God, a Born again Believer you're covered.

I know that Jesus said LOVE the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength and your neighbor as yourself and Paul must say this a dozen times; Do GOOD. He also says don't resist evil (I have a hard time with that so I underlined it in thick black permement marker in my Bible). j/k.

In Hebrews 12:1 we are told to "run with endurance the race that is set before us"....The author uses specific words there that indicate it is uniquely YOUR PERSONAL race. You and only you are running it.
No one else runs your race. Your path and course are unique.

Lots of good stuff in this thread thanks for starting it.

Don't argue with the pastors wife!  No good will come of it.
I've chewed on this bone for 40+ years and it's where I have been led. It's a VERY unpopular set of beliefs in The American Christian Church Inc.