posted
I think the passage *clearly* makes a provision for "just" rulers, as outlined by "the causing fear for evil behaviour" bit, even while acknowledging the general omnipotence of God.
posted
I don't see that at all. To me, that is clearly a progression from Paul saying that all governing authorities were established by God to setting up those authorities as a moral metric.
Do you think Paul was calling for rebellion than? That interpretation would seem to have Paul calling most authorities the people he was writing to were subject to illegitimate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Paul was calling for rebellion. In general he was calling for submission to legitimate governmental authorities.
I do think he allowed enough leeway in his statements, that while a last resort, rebellion can be legitimate, if the government does not comply with the goal of "punishing evildoers".
I also think that non-violent protest may be more in line with the "no personal vengance" and general intent of the passage, rather than "rebellion" persay.
Most of the Christians didn't fight, when martyred in the arena, in keeping with Paul's instructions.
posted
I tried. I can't see that interpretation. I'm also left wondering why Augustine, Luther, or Calvin didn't see it either. Or for that matter, if it's so clear, why this passage was the central argument for the divine right of kings theology?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
