Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah and welcome to the last sabbath before Yom haKippurim (Yom Kippur, Day of Atonements) which is traditionally known as Shabbat Shuvah.

I have been praying a great deal about what to share with you today and the Ruach (Spirit) has been laying on my heart, again and again, to discuss and resolve a controversial passage of Scripture, Romans 13:1-7, which has caused no small amount of distress in the Body of Messiah over the centuries because of disagreements on how it should be interpreted. A year doesn't pass by when someone comes along with their own ideas as to how this passage should be interpreted and implemented.

This is the famous piece of counsel given by the apostle Paul on how we, as believers, should rightly relate to secular governments. I think a reason Yahweh wants me to talk about it is because, in the West particularly, we are right on the edge of dangerous political times that could see us, however unwillingly, embroiled in revolution, and we need - as every previous generation before us - to know how to respond so as to honour our Heavenly Father and not bring needless suffering to ourselves, families and fellow believers. Right now, as I speak, believers in Hong Kong, South Africa, and many other places want to know. What are our obligations to human governments and what are the obligations of human governments to its citizens - to us? Where do you draw the lines and what is the correct scriptural balance?

Before we examine this text, let me first remind you of the exegetical rule, or rule of scriptural interpretation, we have agreed upon - namely, that new revelation must not contradict, but rather expand or build upon, what came before. Furthermore, there is a clear hierarchy of authority in Scripture that enables us to clearly know where to start in approaching difficult theological and practical questions, namely:

• 1. What is revealed through the Father, Yahweh-Elohim (i.e. the Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament as a whole);
• 2. What is revealed through the Son, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) (i.e. the Four Gospels, parts of Acts and the Book of Revelation);
• 3. What is revealed by the original 12 apostles (primarily Peter, James, John - the leading apostles); and finally,
• 4. What is revealed through the post-resurrection apostle Paul (all his letters).

The second rule is that we must examine each and every text in the context of the time, in other words, the history of events, and in the case of Romans 13:1-7, the middle of the 1st century Roman Empire. You cannot necessarily lift a revelation given in a situation 2,000 years past, and transpose it into the 21st century, and expect an easy match. The two situations are entirely different.

So let's begin with our main text, Romans 13:1-7, which we'll first of all read in the New King James Version (NKJV, Evidence Bible, p.1642):

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from Elohim (God), and the authorities that exist are appointed by Elohim (God). Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of Elohim (God), and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is Elohim's (God's) minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is Elohim's (God's) minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience's sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are Elohim's (God's) ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour" (Rom.13:1-7, NKJV).

There are, I would say, essentially three ways of interpreting of this passage, two of which I believe are false, namely:

• 1. Unconditional obedience to state authority even if it requires believers to disobey the mitzvot (commandments) of Yahweh;

• 2. Resistance by non-violent means when citizens are required to disobey the laws of Yahweh; and

• 3. Violent, revolutionary resistance when citizens are required to disobey the laws of Yahweh (e.g. Liberation Theology, which combines Christianity with Marxism).

Before we examine Romans 13, let's first give Paul's words some historical background because we are obliged to read them in the light of the political realities of the 1st century AD. Nothing like this is ever written in a vacuum. Texts like this one are the result of what's going on in the wider environment of the time. So you have ask yourself, Why was this text written in the first place? remember that this is part of Paul's longer letter to the Roman qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) in the very heart of the Roman Imperium - the great Metropolis of Empire and seat of Caesar. This was not written to Yehudim (Judahites) in Judea or to us in 21st century Europe, America, Africa or Asia. Paul had no idea that this letter would be canonised and become Scripture! This was an instruction to believers living in Rome itself at that time in the 50's AD.

OK, so here's the background. In the second century BC, there had been a successful Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids, Greek Imperial power of the day, and that had led, in turn, to the rise of the Zealot Party, a bit like the rise of the Marxists of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Maccabean experience, leading to an independent state lasting about a century, following conquest and occupation by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks - and now Romans - had raised the aspirations of militant Yehudim (Judahites) for autonomy throughout the Roman world. By the 1st century AD, the time in which Paul was writing, these sentiments had incited Yehudim (Judahites) to tax revolts, riots in Rome and Alexandria, and protests against the insane and murderous Emperor Caligula, and against Pontius Pilate who was the Procurator or Prefect in Palestine. That's one reason why Paul writes about taxation in his letter.

Less than 10 years before Paul wrote Romans, the Yehudim (Judahites) were expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius - and remember that the Besorah (Gospel) arose in Rome through the Yehudi (Judahite) synagogues there (probably at the first Messianic Shavu'ot/Weeks/Pentecost - Acts 2:10-11) so in the minds of Romans - and in particular the Roman authorities - Christianity/Messianism was just a Jewish sect. And the Yehudim (Judahites) were, well, as we have seen, 'trouble-makers', a reason Claudius expelled them from Rome in 49 AD. The Roman historian Suetonius tells us why:

"The Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Lives of the Caesars, Claudius 25).

Of course, the information was only half true. The Jews had made disturbances but not at the instigation of "Chrestus", i.e. Christ. In fact, we're informed of this event in Acts 18:2 when in Corinth Paul teamed up with Aquila, who, we read, "had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Yehudim (Judahites) to leave Rome" (NRSV). If Romans was written in 57 AD, as we have good reason to believe, only 8 years had lapsed since this expulsion of Jews from the capital so political tensions and social ill-will toward Jews would still have been high. Add to this fact that less than a decade after Paul wrote this letter to the Roman believers, those troublesome Jewish zealots would launch a major war in 66 AD against the Roman occupation of their country that lasted 7 years until 73 AD that resulted, as Yah'shua (Jesus) had prophesied, in the destruction of the Temple (Mt.24:1-2; Mk.13:1-2; Lk.19:43-44), of which the speaking in tongues at the First Messianic Shavu'ot ('Pentecost') was a sign. And it all started because of anti-taxation protests which had also included attacks by Jews on Roman citizens. Paul knew about all the political and social undercurrents of his time. So what he writes makes perfect sense in that time setting. It's what you would have expected and authenticates his letter.

So can you appreciate how, in the light of such political restiveness, Paul urges believers to honour and obey just governing authorities as "Elohim's (God's) servant for your good" (v.4, NRSV). In other words, the overarching theme or message that is applicable to all generations, of which the Roman situation is a legitimate example, with which, of course, we are in complete agreement, is that Christian/Messianic political responses should be informed by discernment of the will of Elohim (God) (Rom.12:2) and expressions of genuine love which is what the previous chapter - Romans 12 - enjoins us to do. That includes not seeking for private vengeance against the State for its wrongs - for its failure to deliver justice - which is pretty much guaranteed somewhere along the line even to law-abiding citizens who love goodness.

Let's now quickly take a look at what Romans 12 prepares us to do and the way to behave because these statements qualify what Paul says in the next chapter (Rom.13), which is what we're studying. We will see that, on the one hand, Yahweh very much cares about evil and justice, but on the other, doesn't want society to collapse into chaos when ungodly rulers do what they like and get away with it:

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of Elohim (God)" (Rom.12:2, NKJV).

"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good" (Rom 12:9, NKJV).

Chapter 12 is prepping us with the spiritual tools we will need for his challenging political counsel in chapter 13. So, to repeat, Paul's initial instruction is:

"Don't let the world squeeze you into its own mould, but let Elohim (God) re-make you so that your whole attitude of mind is changed..." (Rom.12:2a, J.B.Phillips)

or

"Stop always trying to adjust your life to the world's ways. You must get a new attitude to life; your whole mental outlook must be radically altered, so that you will be able to decide (i.e. take personal responsibility for) what Elohim's (God's) will is, and to know what is good and pleasing to Him, and perfect" (Ibid., Barclay)

"Let us have a genuine hatred of evil and a real devotion to good..." (v.9b, JBP)

or

"You must hate evil and you must give your unshakable loyalty to what is good" (Ibid, Barclay).

Does that sound like a capitulation to the state's view of morality or ethics? Of course not. In other words, this is Paul priming Christians/Messianics for what he is about to say in Chapter 13 - this is the kind of prior obedience to Elohim (God) and the spiritual attitude that believers must have when approaching obedience to the secular authorities. Agreement with the state presupposes an a priori convergence of moral goals - in other words, the assumption is made that your agreement with the State is founded on the State being in agreement with some foundational moral truths, like protecting life and property. There is no hint of supporting or consenting to any immorality imposed by the state.

So if the government forces you to abort your unborn child (because you're not allowed, by an ungodly law, to have more than one or two children, as has been the law in communist China for many years), would you obey it? And why, or why would you not not? Or what if the law, as now obtains in Putin's Russia, prevents you from evangelising for any other church than the state Orthodox Church, or having religious services at home (like singing or praying with friends - we wouldn't be allowed to do what we're doing right now in modern Russia), would you obey it? And why, or why would you not obey it? This is what you have got to wrestle with in your conscience and you must come, as Paul counsels, to an informed decision that will give you peace with Yahweh.

When Paul instructs in the previous (12th) chapter, "don't let yourself be squeezed into the shape dictated by the present age" (Rom.12:2, KNT), which, in the two examples I have given, would be National Communist China and the Russian Federation, does he mean, as many fundamentalist Christians teach, we should just obey the state and let them shoulder the responsibility for our disobedience to Elohim (God)? Can we ever pass the buck like that? Is that what Paul is even saying? Well, go back to chapter 12, and to the last verse, which tells us not to do things the way the Zealots did (or their modern revolutionary equivalents) but rather:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom.12:21, NKJV)

or

"Never let yourself be defeated by evil, but always defeat evil with good" (Ibid., Barclay).

Would not killing ('aborting') your unborn child because you want to have a family of three children instead of the state-mandated maximum of two (previously it was only one), be letting evil triumph? What, then, should the Chinese Christian do in such a situation? How does he defeat evil with good? Well, I know of one or two people in that land confronted by such terrible choices. What they did not do was join some revolutionary party, head for the hills like modern-day zealots, and wage war against the government by shedding of blood (which would have been trying to overcome evil with evil) but instead they escaped Communist China to the West in order to preserve the life of their child and so do what was right. They disobeyed the law requiring them to kill the unborn child but they did so in the most loving way possible by getting out. Obviously when the whole world becomes a global dictatorship under the Antichrist with but one uniform system of law, this will present even harder challenges for believers. Then there will be no physical place to flee to except the Cities of Refuge.

Isn't that similar to what the midwives did in Egypt (only as slaves they had no way of getting out of the country) when Pharaoh ordered the murder of all male Israelite children? We read:

"The midwives, however, feared Elohim (God) and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live" (Ex.1:17, NIV).

I realise this presents moral dilemmas. I realise that Scripture teaches that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev.21:8, NKJV). However, this is speaking of unrepentant, willing liars. Were the Egyptian midwives godly? Yes, because they feared Yahweh more than worldly authority. They did what was right - they were righteous. And, moreover, there is a difference between that kind of fear and the slavish fear of men. Don't ever confuse the two. Be bold and be brave but, as the Saviour taught, "be wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matt.10:16, NKJV).

Every single person faces moral dilemmas like these and they are hard - really hard. It's then we have to set up priorities. The midwives could have concluded that it would be 'dishonouring' Yahweh by lying to the Egyptian authorities and disobeying the supreme civil authority of the land (Pharaoh) and keeping alive babies and youngsters that had been ordered killed but I don't think any decent person would agree with that position. Sadly, I know Christians/Messianics like that who get things back-to-front when it comes to priorities. What honours Yahweh the most? That's the question you are sometimes forced to agonise over.

Here, then, is the inescapable conclusion as we take the whole counsel of Scripture together (Ac.20:27). The early believers had to interpret their situation in the light of existing circumstances and make a decision to "abhor[] what is evil" and so do what is right. We must do no less. It is our divine obligation. No two questions about it. Such dilemmas - some of them terrible - will face us all once society starts to disintegrate after the imminent Collapse and government authority either goes wild or disappears altogether in some places. What happens if your nation falls apart? What if part of your country seceeds? Which government will you obey? What would you have done in the Yugoslav Civil War? Supported the communist federal government or the government of one of the new republics (like Slovenia or Croatia)? Would you have supported the American War of Independence (who rebelled against taxation without representation) or recognised Britain as the legitimate civil authority? Many believers argue that the American cesession was illegal from a Biblical, Romans 13 point-of-view! These are hard, hard questions and there aren't always clear answers in Scripture. The bottom line may then become: what is in the best interests of my family and my neighbour?

Did those Chinese believers have a moral precedent to rebel against the government? Of course, the sanctity of human life trumps almost everything else except denying Christ! Obedience to the mitzvah (commandment), "You shall not murder" (Ex.20:13; Dt.5:17; Mt.19:18; Rom.13:9 - the last one being two verses after the instruction in how to deal with governments). That's it. Debate over. There is never any mitzvah (commandment) in Scripture which says: "You shall not sin unless the state commands you to, in which case the state takes the responsibility in your place." You will search in vain for such an instruction and to take such an attitude is no different to the blame-shifting cop-out: "The state made me do it!" I can only imagine some Calvinists taking such a position that denies free moral agency: 'God put the state there. You are predestined to salvation so your obeying the state and disobeying the commandments will still guarantee your salvation.' I think not.

So long as we have the freedom to choose, we must choose. What if I am locked up in a concentration camp by a wicked government that prevents me from observing the Sabbath, the festivals or eating kosher? Am I guilty? In that situation, no you are not, because you have been denied your free will. Then those forcibly denying you the ability to obey become guilty...unless you choose to die, of course. Some would. Others would say there were more important things to live for. Likewise, the repentant thief on the cross could not be baptised and was excused - Yah'shua (Jesus) said he would be in Paradise with Him that day (Lk.23:43). But that's a different kind of moral dilemma. Where you draw the line is up to you and people will have different ideas about this. Daniel disobeyed the King's instruction to worship an idol and not to worship Yahweh. You must personally decide.

I have given you a pretty straightforward example in the communist Chinese case - I can't imagine any born-again Christian or Messianic willingly sacrificing her baby because a government commands its death, which if you think about it, is just a form of Moloch worship and therefore idolatry. But what of other ungodly laws? Are there blurred lines anywhere? At what point would you be prepared to compromise?

If the government ordered you to get a divorce, would you comply? It's common now even though there are no Scriptural grounds. In Sweden you can get divorced by simply filling in a form on-line. Does the government even have any legitimate authority over such relationships? Yahweh never gives it to them and it never interfered until recently in history in the West. Now the 'State' is the 3rd party (aside from Elohim/God) in every marriage, making even monogamy a fiction. And since the State claims overall authority over marriages, it becomes a 'Supra-Husband' of sort, making all state marriages polyandrous.

Yet it is Yahweh who makes all marriages, not the State. He decides what is godly and ungodly sex, not man, and only He can make the act of marriage (sex) respectable and lawful. What about the liegitimacy or illegetimacy of 'churches'? Many countries have State churches or religions. Does a State's imprimatur make them or their members to be in right relationship with Elohim (God)? In England, the Government chooses the Bishops of the Church of England! I think not. Yet most governments decide who can, and cannot, contract a marriage, yet Yahweh says He alone can do that. Your State-issued married certificate does not make you 'married' - but a contract in the presence of two or three witnesses, and/or sleeping with someone, most certainly does. Sex is the act of marriage. Or does society have to approve first? Society keeps changing its views every year but that does not make what society approves, or disapproves, of 'legitimate' marriage. These days 'society' approves of gross immorality and wickedness, aided and abetted by the State. But that doesn't make either right or authoritative. Do you imagine that for one moment Elohim (God) recognises them?

How pure or defiled is your conscience? Are you able to live as Paul lived who said:

"I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward Elohim (God) and men" (Acts 24:16, NKJV).

We'll come to more examples in a moment, and to harder questions. But first let's get the overall principles clear, remembering the earlier instruction by the Presiding Apostle, Peter, whose famous words I know you all know:

"We ought to obey Elohim (God) rather than men" (Acts 5:29, NKJV)

The context here is the instruction by the religious authorities who prohibited believers from preaching Yah'shua (Jesus), so there you have an unambiguous answer to a goverment that forbids you to witness. Clearly they do not have authority to command either murdering the unborn (or anyone else), forbidding or regulating marriage (1 Tim.4:3) or forbidding evangelism. So you would be perfectly entitled to disobey the Russian government's prohibition to witness or convert people, though wisdom would constrain you to find new methods of doing so that are unlikely to get you arrested within 5 minutes of opening your mouth. The important question then becomes, how do you resist such a law? More importantly, at this stage, it introduces a QUALIFIER telling us that whilst governments have authority over us as believers that authority is limited. There are boundaries. So when Paul opens up with the words:

"Every person must be subject ('submit' - Barclay) to the ruling authorities" (Rom.13:1, KNT).

"As a result, anyone who rebels against authority is resisting what Elohim (God) had set up, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Rom.13:2, KNT).

And that's where governments, who use this section of Romans 13 against believers, usually stop. It's what the nazis used against Corrie ten Boom who was illegally hiding Jews in her home when they demanded she hand over the Jews she was sheltering for internment and certain death. She disobeyed them - quite correctly - for reasons which should be obvious to those who know the mitzvot (commandments) and Peter's testimony that where there is a conflict between the Law of Yahweh (the Torah) and the law of man that the Law of Yahweh always takes precedence. Always. And that can be a great test of our faithfulness and, above all, our love.

The reason governments stop at verse 2 is because Paul goes on to give an important qualifier to the limits of their authority:

"For rulers hold no terrors for people who do good but only for people who do evil. If you want to have no fear of the ruling power, do what is good, and it will praise you" (Rom.13:3, KNT)

or

"It is not good conduct but bad conduct which has any reason to fear the magistrates. Do you want to be in a position in which you need have no fear of those in authority? If your conduct is good, you will receive nothing but approval from them" (Ibid., Barclay).

Who do you think Paul was addressing? Roman believers who were regarded by the authorities as a sect of the 'Jews' - remember, this was several generations before the evolution of what came to be called the 'church' which later came to be viewed as a distinct body from Judaism. Why did Claudius expell the Jews from Rome? Because they incited anti-tax riots! And here is Paul telling the believers in Yah'shua (Jesus) not to imitate these zealots! So how is Paul to facilitate helping the Roman authorities make a distinction between non-Messianic Jews and Messianics/Christians? By writing this letter which amounts to an authoritative political statement. Then believers, as well as being instructed personally, could present Paul's authoritative statement to any suspicious officials and allay their fears. I think that is a reasonable assumption to make. Remember, letters like Romans are responses to particular situations in both the local Messianic Community (Church) as well as the nation hosting it - in this case, Rome.

Unfortunately there are some fanatical Christians who try to bend Romans 13:3 to mean that a different category of 'good' is implied to the moral or ethical goodness of the mitzvot (commandments). And they point out the next verse:

"It (the ruling power, state) is Elohim's (God's) servant, you see: for you and your good. But if you do evil, be afraid; the sword it (the ruling power, state) is no empty gesture. It is Elohim's (God's) servant, you see: to bring His anger on evil-doers. That is why it is necessary to submit, not only to avoid punishment but because of conscience" (vv.3b-5, KNT).

Here you must use a little intelligence and common sense if you are not to become a schizophrenic. Accordingly you are obliged to draw the following conclusion, as many believers rightly do, and that is this: Governing authorities derive their legitimacy from Yahweh, and serve Yahweh, by doing what? By punishing evil and approving goodness - in other words, by implementing justice. They too are accountable in the here and now and not just at some distant point in the future on the Day of Judgment. Elohim (God) is the one who decides what is good and what is just. He appoints secular authority to make sure that justice is done "because of the evil elements in men's hearts" [1] which, if unchecked, would lead to anarchy something, by the way, which is not happening in South Africa at this time that must - and will - lead to judgment of the State. Since Messianic Israel is currently without a country of its own, and will remain that way until Yah'shua (Jesus) returns and sets up the Theocratic Kingdom in the Millennium, the governments of the nations have, as their responsibility, the administration of civil justice which Yahweh appoints them to. It is not their business to pronounce on religion even though many do.

If you believe that Romans 13:1-7 is a revelation for all generations in every situation then you have to find a common denominator that applies to all legitimate governments administering justice. What is it that all peoples of all religions or even no religions expect of their governments? To serve them justice. To protect honest citizens against robbers and murderers, swindlers and rapists, and the like. Thus, it is logical to conclude, that the just purposes of government evoke submission by the assent of conscience rather then by fear of punishment as Paul instructs in verse 5:

"It is therefore necessary to submit to [civil] authority, not simply because you are afraid of Elohim's (God's) wrath, but alse because you respect your own conscience" (Rom.13:5, Barclay).

But would an unjust tyranny qualify as an authority instituted by Elohim (God)? If you know anything about the denomination called the Society of Friends or, more simply, the 'Quakers', you will know that they have very definite views about such things and do not give unqualified obedience to the State. I know quite a bit about the Quakers because many on my mother's side of the family were of this denomination. Quakers are pacifists, refuse to take up arms in war, and relatives of ours in England and Wales got into a lot of trouble in the Second World War for being conscientious objectors. I don't know if any were sent to prison or not but I know many Quakers were and were branded as traitors even though most willingly served with medical units ministering to the wounded. My mother's first husband was a Quaker (he was killed in the war) and her sister, my aunt, had quite a colourful religious history first as an Anglican, then as a Spiritualist, then a Quaker, before she finally settled down as a Methodist.

I knew a number of Quakers when I lived in Oxford because it was there I began my search for Christ and found Him in 1977. Those were the days of CND or the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which was strongly supported by Marxists and other lefties, but also by the Quakers because they were pacifists and opposed to weapons of mass destruction. Up the road was a US military base which had nuclear missiles. The Quakers deliberatelly withheld some of their taxes because they didn't want to support Britain's nuclear missile program. Though I was always anti-communist I must say the arguments advanced by the Quakers were quite persuasive which led to no small amount of confusion on my part until I finally resolved the matter theologically to the satisfaction of my conscience. It's why I am able to preach confidently about this subject today. I had connections with Moral Rearmament too, a Christian pacifist group for a while which started in Oxford before the war, so I was immersed in the very issues we are talking about today to a large degree.

Anyway, many years later - in 1999 - I came across this really interesting booklet by a Prussian called Konrad Braun who was born in Berlin in 1896, served in the First World War in the Imperial German Army, and became a prisoner-of-war of the French. After the war he obtained a Doctorate in Law at the University of Breslau, occupied various positions in courts of law and legal administration, and was appointed Kammergerichtsrat or Judge in the Court of Appeal in Berlin during the Weimar Republic in 1932 until the Nazi government dismissed him. He met the Quakers in Berlin, fled with his family to England in 1938 and in 1941 eventually joined the Society of Friends and became a naturalised British subject, becoming a lecturer in international relations. This little book, written in 1950, is really insightful into the difficult questions posed by Romans 13:1-7. Remember he experienced Imperial Germany, the Weimar Republic, the National Socialists and finally the British system of justice, all of which were, or are, very different from one another. I expect he would be shocked to see the state of justice in Britain, Germany, and the West in general today.

Braun in his analysis of state power, in citing various authors, describes secular government as "organised selfishness" whose essence "is not justice but power" (E.Brunner). It's striving for power is "a demonic principle" (N.Berdyaev). The Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) said that "the State, the most impersonal because the most comprehensive of institutions, knows nothing of love", with William Temple (1881-1944), the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (1896-1902) saying, with his eye on immediate inter-war Britain which was still Christian, that "the State stands for justice, the Church for love" which was an over-simplification but certainly what we British once strived for. Depending what country you live in and in what era of time, all these statements are understandable and are true to some extent. Obviously the Roman Empire, which was the apostle Paul's frame of reference, was nothing like the Britain of 1950 but much more like the totalitarian Nazi system of 1933-38 or its communist counterpart in the Soviet Union when Braun finally left Germany.

When Paul says that the state has the right to bear arms or "bear the sword" (Rom.13:4, NKJV) it is for the purpose of executing capital punishment for murder, robbery, and the like, as was the practice both in the Roman Empire and indeed according to Torah, and to ensure one other thing which concludes this short Pauline passage.

Do you remember what I said earlier about how the Jews in Rome and Alexandria had previously revolted (along no doubt with other Roman citizens) againt massive tax hikes by corrupt emperors like Calligula to finance their wars and lavish lifestyles? Well, Paul makes it clear that believers may not so revolt! He says:

"That, too, is why you pay taxes. The officials in question are Elohim's (God's) ministers, attending to this very thing. So pay each of them what is owed: tribute to those who collect it, revenue to those who collect it" (Rom.13:6-7a, KNT).

Notice in N.T.Wright's translation he uses the word "tribute". J.B.Phillips translates it as "toll" (also ISRV) and others "fees" (CEV) or "revenue" (ESV, JNT/CJB) but I think you'll find a lot of translations (especially Aramaic-based ones - e.g. AENT, CLNT, HRV, etc.) agree with Wright who is without doubt the world's leading Pauline scholar. Judea was a tributary state of the Roman Empire. So is Yahweh giving the green-light to a nation like Rome to collect tribute from His people? Definitely, and with Torah-precedent too. Whenever Israel and Judah sinned and became subject to neighbouring Empires, Yahweh not only did not oppose them paying tribute but instructed His nevi'im (prophets) like Jeremiah to order them to pay tribute when they contemplated rebelling. In other words, financial bondage is part and parcel of being out of right-relationship with Yahweh. That is one reason we are expected to pay taxes and modern equivalents of "tribute" however ungodly we may regard them as being (such as today's obviously fraudulent carbon-tax). Money, in any case, is low down in Yahweh's priorities but He is most definitely concerned about maintaining spiritual, moral and ethical standards over which secular governments have no ultimate authority. That is why we cannot allow them to force us to kill anyone, born or unborn. Sadly, in countries like Sweden, doctors are forced by law to carry out abortions or lose their jobs so in reality Christian doctors must either change profession or leave the country so as not to have the blood of innocents on their hands. By this means the State gains complete control over the professions.

The last item on Paul's list of 'do's' as far as the secular power is concerned is as follows:

"Respect those who should be respected. Honour the people one ought to honour" (Rom.13:7b, KNT)

or

"Discharge your obligations to all men; pay tax and toll (tribute), reverence and respect, to those to whom they are due" (Ibid., NEB).

"Leave no claim outstanding against you, except that of mutual love. He who loves his neighbour has satisfied every claim of the law..." (Rom.13:8, NEB)

Here Paul dovetails the Roman qodeshim's (saints', set-apart ones') obligations to Roman Law into their obligation to Yahweh's Law, the Torah by interjecting a unifying principle enabling them to find commonality where commonality exists:

"For the mitzvot (commandments), 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet,' and any other mitzvah (commandment) there may be, are all summed up in the one rule, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Love cannot wrong a neighbour; therefore the whole Torah (Law) is summed up in ahavah (love)/chesed (Mercy)" (Rom.13:9-10, NEB).

Whatever is of ahavah (love)/chesed (Mercy) is of Yahweh in either system of Law. How is ahavah (love)/chesed (Mercy) defined? Clearly, by the Ten Commandments, of which four are mentioned, "and any other mitzvah (commandment) there may be". And what might those be? The other hundreds of mitzvot (commandments) in Torah!

Do you see what Paul is doing here? He is explaining how we are to obey the laws of the land, namely, by loving our neighbour, believer and unbeliever alike, and he explains what that 'loving' consists of - complete obedience to Torah - living the Torah lifestyle. He is underlining the necessity of believers resident in Rome and outside the Holy Land living all the mitzvot (commandments) as best they can. If we are obedient to Yahweh we will not be in conflict with any laws of any land that Yahweh approves of or which do not conflict with Torah. So if the State bans smoking or littering in public places, or insists that we protect the environment by regulating pollution, for instance, we are obviously fine with that. That's in everyone's best interests.

Thus we see how Romans 13:1-7 not only connects with Romans 12 before it but with 13:8 onwards. Now the Torah is being given global application. It devolves on the whole world. It's not just Samaritans who were the Yehudim's (Judahites') neighbours but now the Romans and Greeks. Believers are to take the Kingdom with them wherever they go and manifest it outwardly in their homes and communities as best they can and where living conditions are generally improved for everyone.

All of this plays out practically when civillians - believers and unbelievers alike, no matter what régime is involved - are united in their desire that the authorities apprehend and punish murderers and robbers, thus administering justice. That is a basic, human instinct placed in all people by the Creator. Decent people of every kind want to live in an orderly, properly functioning society where they are protected.

In Paul's day, Christians/Messianics were regarded as the scum of the earth in Rome so naturally Paul did not want them to get a reputation as trouble-makers. No good would come of believers being regarded as crazy dissidents who refuse to cooperate with the most basic social mechanisms. Paul does not want believers to pick unnecessary quarrels with the 'lesser lords' of the world by rioting or refusing to pay taxes. Yes, we are, as believers, a revolutionary community, but not like the zealots. To engage in violence would be to play the Empire back at its own game, thus defeating the whole Gospel message of love and peace, and set back any chances of successful evangelism.

Brethren and sisters, life is complicated enough without our unnecessarily making it more complicated. We are to obey Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) and set a good example in society, recognising the right of the secular authorities to maintain order and collect taxes. We should show respect to legitimate authority. We don't want to do what Dr. Kent Hovind did when he refused to pay taxes and ended up in prison for several years. What he thought was honouring Elohim (God) actually brought disrepute to His Name. The money we use - the coins and bank notes, at any rate - have 'Caesar's head' on it, so if we use Caesar's money, we must pay what is due to Caesar (Mt.22:17-21; Lk.20:22-25). At some point we'll be denied use of it, as is prophesied in Scripture (Rev.13:17), in which case we must learn to do without it and be self-sufficient in the places Yahweh has set-apart for us to live.

Paul's world and our world have been radically different from each other for several centuries. Sadly, though, Christianity (at least in the West) is in terminal decline and democracy is rapidly heading back into the kind of feudalism and tyranny that prevailed in the 1st century, and worse - and we must be prepared for that. A mature, intelligent response to Romans 13:1-7 becomes increasingly important because conflicts with the State will increase. Sadly, Paul's words have been seriously misinterpreted over the years, particularly by Torah-rejecting Christians, and as a result great harm has been done to the Gospel cause. Paul's instructions in Romans 13:1-7 were given to us to tell us how to live wisely and circumspectly under alien rule. If a law of the Empire conflicts with a mitzvah (commandment) of Yahweh, our course is clear - we shall obey Yahweh before man and take the appropriate steps. However, we must not respond, as the zealots would have done, with violence. We are not here to overthrow the State.

I hope this has been helpful. I would like to have given more examples but perhaps we can have a discussion afterwards for those who are interested. Yahweh bless you, enjoy the remainder of this last Shabbat before Yom haKippurim which begins tomorrow at sunset and, Yahweh willing, we will assembly again the following morning for a brief word. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] Konrad Braun, Justice and the Law of Love, Swarthmore Lecture (George Allen & Unwin, London: 1950), p.40

Acknowledgements

[1] Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part 2, Chapters 9-16 (SPCK, London: 2004), pp.67-109
[2] William Barclay, The New Testament: A New Translation (Fortuna/Collins, London: 1969)
[3] J.B.Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English (Collins, London: 1972)
[4] The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (OUP, Harmonsworth, Middlesex, England: 1974)
[5] Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (OUP, London: 1968)
[6] N.T.Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Parts I-IV, 2 vols. (SPCK, London: 2013)

Further Reading

[1] Pandemics & Assemblies: Obey the Government & Stay at Home?