My understanding of that is; Jesus' ear is just next to the speakers of government and if I was in government, I'd be very careful what I say and because the scriptures are a discerner of the thoughts ... Jesus' input is absolute.
Now, with free will, we can choose to refuse and ignore ...
Someone ping me when they name their daughter Jezabel
Well, when Jesus sets up his government in Israel and rules over the nations of the world, the nations we see today - that government will be quite different from the USA and the Constitution. The Constitution will be “history” at that time. There won’t be any differing and opposing political parties. There will only be the rule of a monarch. It will be the Messiah of Israel’s one-world government.
People will live, work and have families, and there will be no armies and no wars. It will quite different than now.
I will probably get flamed for this, but here goes...
These articles are generally ok by their nature. And they get people thinking. But they many times leave out some core components.
We have the following governments:
city
county
state
federal
UN
Each of the governments listed above takes on different responsibilities and authorities.
As most know, the federal government originally was intended as limited form with only authority derived from that which is written into the constitation and amendments. This was a contract between the states. And that “[T]the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So when a question such as is posed in this article, “what constitutes good government,” and an implied question such as what happens when the government is no longer good, the answer needs to be explored in the context of “which government?”
If a once good government violates its contract and usurps its authority, then what would be valid Christian responses? This is one of the types of questions that needs to be explored.
This article is talking about the fed government and wants to discuss whether an expanded or limited government is better. If this article was talking about the UN or the state, then our discussion would be different.
My preference is the extremely limited fed government - always; I want say that up front. But, if the fed government were to expand, then it needs to it legally according to the contract. The contract, Constitution, says that if the responsibility (and also authority) should expand, then the contract needs to be amended.
No amendment, no expansion.
If there is expansion and no amendment, then it becomes tyranny, a violation of the contract. I believe this needs to part of this discussion.
What is the Christian response when one party violates the contract?
Flame away..
They "got it" in full measure after the crucifiction & ressurection.
This is just begging for a comparison between “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”. If Jesus wasn’t a liberal in his day, I don’t know what the word means, rotflmao!