Rethinking The Actual Understanding Of Romans 13...

For my Christian friends on here...

In recent years, the majority of Christians are interpreting Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by our Creator. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become their actual god without even realizing the truth of the matter.

Yet, when confronted with the the meaning of Romans 13, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers of this nation, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, chaotic and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of this type of thinking. What it all boils down to is that most people are just mediocre minded cowardly conformists because it's comfortable and simple. I'm not one of those people. And that makes me a terrible person in the mind of those who bow before the agents of government as if they were some sort of anointed god send.

First, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one's government says it is. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view. If an agent of the government were to commit murder without repercussion from the people he “serves”, how can it be said that we should obey that government. Qualified immunity comes to mind. Thou shalt not murder is not a commandment that stands to the side for someone who is an agent of government if murder is committed. Case in point…the sniper, Lon Horiuchi, who is SUPPOSED to be doing the will of “We The People” shot an unarmed woman, Vicki Weaver, standing in the doorway of the home she lived in while holding her infant girl, Elishaba, in her arms, during the Ruby Ridge incident back in the 1990’s. The people of the state of Idaho convened a grand jury and looked at the evidence presented and indicted Mr. Horiuchi for negligent manslaughter from my recollection. Some higher up agent for the Federal government called a “judge” vacated the indictment claiming basically that Lon Horiuchi was “just doing his job” and that he has special immunity from a manslaughter charge. Is that what a JUST government allows? And to think that the whole debacle was brought on for the non payment of $200 because Randy Weaver had cut a shotgun with a hacksaw and file below a arbitrary length determined by some “law” makers back before 1934. If you don’t see the insanity involved in incidents like this as a Christian who might insist on the interpretation of Romans 13 to include these kinds of insane tyrannical acts, I submit that you should be looking to seek some help! And then there was the recent case of Bryan Malinowski who was murdered by a group of men from the ATF called a “SWAT” team for also not paying $200 and registering as a Federal Firearms Dealer. Wouldn’t that incident simply been avoided by going to his place of work and confronting him during the day and simply letting him know that you, as an agent of the vaunted ATF, had been observing his alleged illegal activities at gun shows and that he needed to either get the license in question or cease and desisted his actual perfectly legal and lawful activity? No, that would have been too simple. The way the UNJUST government operates is that they send out a squad of killer mercenaries at 6:00 AM, tape over your door bell camera, cut the power to your house and then smash the door with pretty much guns blazing since Bryan was gunned down 59 seconds later. If you believe that Romans 13 demands submission to some of these tyrannical “laws” again, seek help.

Second, it is simply not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king's actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement of the Magna Carta which they lived under at the time. Thomas Jefferson listed eighteen grievances in the Declaration of Independence with some of them listing grievances upon grievance. Just look at #13 and ask yourself if any of this reads familiar today?

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: (ATF? FBI? CIA? NSA? IRS?)

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (Mentioned above about the vacatting of Lon Horiuchi’s indictment.)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Do you remember to consenting to taxes on your labor or your so called property?)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Ask the J6 victims after how long now?)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (They will try you in a federal court many states away from your residence to create hardships for your family.)

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

In July of 1774, some of our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Virginia, and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the "Fairfax Resolves."

Think about for a moment resolves numbers five and six:

"Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the people of these colonies, contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery."

"Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other."

All of the Resolves are loaded with truths that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The "shot that was heard around the world” on Lexington green was loaded utilizing the truths of the "Fairfax Resolves." How can one make that statement? After pleading with George III to uphold his covenant agreement and after seeking for a redress of grievances, the "coup de grace" is plainly stated in the 23rd Resolve:

"Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty's person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and must humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal."

In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could "be but one appeal." And that appeal would be to heaven itself!

Last --and most important -- it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. His parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison and were in some cases killed for preaching Christ under the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and was crucified for his defiance. If you really look closely at the words he spoke an that were recorded, he was an anarchist. He believed in self government. He was asked in Matthew 22, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

To which Jesus replied: “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I submit that tyrants have lack of love for their fellow man be they legislatures or “law” enforcement. Any way you look at it, Lon Horiuchi is a murderer and those who shot and killed Bryan Malinowski are murderers and should be dealt with in a just way. Oh, and don’t get me going on the murderer of Daniel Shaver.

Romans 13 is a explanation by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:

1. Good government is ordained by God.

2. Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.

3. We the people must obey good and godly laws.

4. As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power -- not the IRS tax code , or the Uniform Commercial Code or the thousands upon thousands of “laws” on the books that make a crime out of a victimless act.

5. Good government is not to be feared.

6. In America, we are to pay honor and custom to whom it is due.

7. Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.

One day my wife said to me that the reason she won’t let my grandson stay the night is because she fears we could possibly be “raided” , euphemism for SWATTING due to my political views and some of my provocative statements she has read that I’ve posted. If that doesn’t fly in the face of #5 in the list, I don’t know what does.

As a result of that list, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of justice. Our Creator is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.

The non aggression principle (NAP) is what every person on this planet should be using to guide their existence.

“The fundamental axiom of anarchy is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against nonaggression. Therein lies the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of actual anarchist theory.“

What do you think? Otherwise…

---