[LambSlave]

Unfortunately, I can’t see how Romans 13 makes that assumption. The Roman goverment in Judea/Palestine was notoriously corrupt, and extremely hostile to first Jews, then in turn to Christians. Revolts and rebellions were commonplace throughout the region, so Paul’s comments here are difficult to understand except as divinely inspired Scripture. I know some will say that he was a Roman citizen, so he was a Rome-bot, in modern parlance; or alternately that he was so afraid of death, that he could do nothing other than support Rome in writing... but that ignores the divinely inspired nature of Scripture, IMHO. BTW, I would love to make the assumption you state, I just don’t see how it is warranted.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Unfortunately, I can’t see how Romans 13 makes that assumption. The Roman goverment in Judea/Palestine was notoriously corrupt, and extremely hostile to first Jews, then in turn to Christians. Revolts and rebellions were commonplace throughout the region, so Paul’s comments here are difficult to understand except as divinely inspired Scripture. I know some will say that he was a Roman citizen, so he was a Rome-bot, in modern parlance; or alternately that he was so afraid of death, that he could do nothing other than support Rome in writing... but that ignores the divinely inspired nature of Scripture, IMHO. BTW, I would love to make the assumption you state, I just don’t see how it is warranted.

Thanks for the information.

This raises an interesting point about the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution, doesn't it?

At what point does one no longer submit to the governing authority?