Romans 13 and Obeying the Beast - The Remnant- JournalHome.com

About Me

Romans 13 and Obeying the Beast - 4:41 PM, 2/24/2009

Romans 13 and Obeying the Beast

Bernard Pyron

The beast is the government beast of Revelation 13: 1-10.

A majority of Protestant - Lutheran and Reformed - churches in Nazi
> Germany supported Hitler, just as many "conservative" churches in the
> U.S. today support the Bush regime.
>
> Many American 501C(3) churches and preachers have been deceived into
> supporting the Bush regime, and the present federal government which
> fails most of the time to act in the interests of the common people,
> including most church members. Are they not moving toward the attitude
> of the majority of German Protestants during the Nazi era? Part of
> this attitude says that Christians should support and obey their
> government, no matter how wicked it may be in the view of some.
>
> One of the main leaders of a small network of remnant German
> Christians who opposed Hitler was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran.
> Bonhoeffer and his brethren called their opposition the Confessing
> Church in Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer was hung in 1945 by the Nazis for
> his testimony to Christ and for his courage.
>
> This majority of German Lutherans and Calvinists who supported Hitler
> and the Nazi government seemed to have forgotten that first the German
> Lutherans, and later the European and English Calvinists in the
> sixteenth century formulated a rationale to justify Christian
> opposition to the tyranny of government. And/or, the German pastors
> who knew of this Protestant history thought it better to ignore it and
> go along with Hitler.
>
> Blind obedience to bad government, one that oppresses and threatens
> many of its citizens or kills innocent people in foreign lands is not
> the Protestant heritage.
>
> As early as 1531 Martin Luther himself in his Warning to the Dear
> German People said that if the Catholic political leaders made war
> upon the Protestants, they were the real rebels, no longer lawful
> magistrates, and nothing but "assassins and traitors."
>
> Lutheran Martin Bucer at about this time wrote that "...if a superior
> ruler falls into ungodly or tyrannical rule or causes injury to his
> subjects, the inferior rulers...must attempt to remove him by force.
> (The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol Two, Quentin
> Skinner, 1978, p.206)."
>
> Did not the FBI at Waco on April 19, 1993, acting as
> the federal government, and hence, in the capacity of the ruler, kill
> by burning and shooting a number of its "subjects, according to the film Rules of Engagement (1997) by William Gazecki? Then in 1999 Michael McNulty released Waco: A New Revelation about the killng of the Branch Davidians which had been attributed by the media to their mass suicide.

Did   not the
> "ruler," that is, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, shoot and kill Vicki Weaver
> from a distance away in August of 1992 when Daddy Bush was president?
> Earlier U.S. Marshals shot and killed fourteen year old Sammy Weaver
> in the back, and killed his dog Striker.

Many American 501C(3) churches and preachers have been deceived into
> supporting the Bush regime, and the present federal government which
> fails most of the time to act in the interests of the common people,
> including most church members. Are they not moving toward the attitude
> of the majority of German Protestants during the Nazi era? Part of
> this attitude says that Christians should support and obey their
> government, no matter how wicked it may be in the view of some.
>
> One of the main leaders of a small network of remnant German
> Christians who opposed Hitler was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran.
> Bonhoeffer and his brethren called their opposition the Confessing
> Church in Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer was hung in 1945 by the Nazis for
> his testimony to Christ and for his courage.
>
> This majority of German Lutherans and Calvinists who supported Hitler
> and the Nazi government seemed to have forgotten that first the German
> Lutherans, and later the European and English Calvinists in the
> sixteenth century formulated a rationale to justify Christian
> opposition to the tyranny of government. And/or, the German pastors
> who knew of this Protestant history thought it better to ignore it and
> go along with Hitler.
>
> Blind obedience to bad government, one that oppresses and threatens
> many of its citizens or kills innocent people in foreign lands is not
> the Protestant heritage.
>
> As early as 1531 Martin Luther himself in his Warning to the Dear
> German People said that if the Catholic political leaders made war
> upon the Protestants, they were the real rebels, no longer lawful
> magistrates, and nothing but "assassins and traitors."
>
> Lutheran Martin Bucer at about this time wrote that "...if a superior
> ruler falls into ungodly or tyrannical rule or causes injury to his
> subjects, the inferior rulers...must attempt to remove him by force.
> (The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol Two, Quentin
> Skinner, 1978, p.206)."
>
Quentin Skinner (l978, p. 206) says that the Calvinists "...took over
> and reiterated the arguments in favor of forcible resistance which the
> Lutherans had already developed in the 1530's, and had subsequently
> revised in order to legitimize the war against the Emperor fought by
> the Schalkaldic league after 1546." The Emperor was a Catholic.
>
> Swiss Calvinist Pierre Viret (1511-1571) had said in his Remonstrances
> (1550) that inferior magistrates are powers ordained by God with a
> duty to protect the people against supreme rulers when the supreme
> rulers fall into ungodliness or tyranny.
>
> "Inferior magistrates" would be state governors, state legislatures,
> and county and city governments. Yet the Viret idea that lower level
> government should protect the people against tyranny by the highest
> level rulers is not made explicit in the U.S. Constitution. The 1787
> Constitution, according to historian Gordon Wood in The Creation of
> the American Republic (1969), was not fully based upon the English
> republican ideology of opposition between the people's freedom and the
> power of the government. The Constitution of 1787 was, Wood, said,
> "...intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the
> democratic tendencies of the period."
>
> The powers of American state government, in relation to the power of
> the federal government, are rather weakly supported by the Tenth
> Amendment. The Tenth Amendment, which is not really an amendment but
> more a part of the original Constitution, says "The powers not
> delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to
> the states respectively..." The Amendment seems to assume that the
> powers of the federal government really are limited to those powers
> enumerated in Section 8 of Article One. The Tenth Amendment gives no
> powers to state and local governments to resist the federal government
> when it over-steps the specific powers given to it in Article One,
> Section 8 - or when the federal power becomes ungodly and tyrannical,
> and kills its citizens without moral or legal common law
> justification. I know that some U.S. cities have passed bills against
> the Patriot Act of the federal government - but this does not mean
> that Act is outlawed in the jurisdiction of those cities.
>
> John Knox (1505-1572), a Scottish Calvinist, and Christopher Goodman
> (1520-1603), apparently an Englishman, came up with the doctrine that
> it is the duty of each citizen and of the "whole multitude" to
> maintain and defend the moral laws of God against their own rulers and
> lesser magistrates (Skinner, 1978, p.237).
>
> Calvinist John Ponet (1514-1556) taught that when the people allow
> rulers to become idolators and wicked that God will punish the people
> with famine, pestilence and wars.
>
> But what about Romans 13: 1-7? The Catholics and the Church of
> England interpret Romans 13 to mean that the ruler has a divine right
> to govern the people, given to him by God. The people must obey the
> ruler, or government in all that he or it does.
>
> Romans 13: 1-7 says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
> For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
> God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
> of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
> For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
> then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou
> shalt have praise of the same:   For he is the minister of God to
> thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he
> beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
> revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
> needs to subject, not only for wreath, but also for conscience sake.
> For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers,
> attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all
> their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;
> fear to whom fear; honor to whom honored."
>
> John Gill, in his 18th century commentary on the Bible says of Romans
> 13: 2 that "This is not to be understood, as if magistrates were above
> the laws, and had a lawless power to do as they will without
> opposition; for they are under the law, and liable to the penalty of
> it, in case of disobedience, as others; and when they make their own
> will a law, or exercise a lawless tyrannical power, in defiance of the
> laws of God, and of the land, to the endangering of the lives,
> liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted, as Saul
> was by the people of Israel, when he would have took away the life of
> Jonathan for the breach of an arbitrary law of his own, and that too
> without the knowledge of it, (1 Samuel 14:45) ; but the apostle is
> speaking of resisting magistrates in the right discharge of their
> office, and in the exercise of legal power and authority."
>
> On Romans 13: 4, John Gill goes on to say that "He is a minister of
> God's appointing and commissioning, that acts under him, and for him,
> is a kind of a vicegerent of his, and in some, sense represents him;
> and which is another reason why men ought to be subject to him; and
> especially since he is appointed for their "good", natural, moral,
> civil, and spiritual, as Pareus observes: for natural good, for the
> protection of men's natural lives, which otherwise would be in
> continual danger from wicked men; for moral good, for the restraining
> of vice, and encouragement of virtue; profaneness abounds exceedingly,
> as the case is, but what would it do if there were no laws to forbid
> it, or civil magistrates to put them in execution? for civil good, for
> the preservation of men's properties, estates, rights, and liberties,
> which would be continually invaded, and made a prey of by others; and
> for spiritual and religious good, as many princes and magistrates have
> been; a sensible experience of which we have under the present
> government of these kingdoms, allowing us a liberty to worship God
> according to our consciences, none making us afraid, and is a reason
> why we should yield a cheerful subjection to it."
>
> Again, Gill seems to be saying that Paul is describing Godly rulers,
> and that these Godly rulers should be respected and obeyed, as long as
> they are Godly.
>
> Romans 13: 6 says to pay tribute to rulers, who are God's ministers.
> Gill comments on this verse in saying that the actions of rulers are
> "...not of laying, collecting, and receiving tribute, but of service
> and ministry under God, for the welfare of their subjects; for rightly
> to administer the office of magistracy requires great pains, care,
> diligence, and assiduity; and as great wisdom and thoughtfulness in
> making laws for the good of the body, so a diligent constant concern
> to put them in execution, to secure the lives of subjects from cut
> throats and murderers, and their properties and estates from thieves
> and robbers; and they are not only obliged diligently to attend to
> such service at home, but to keep a good lookout abroad, and penetrate
> into, and watch the designs of foreign enemies, to defend from their
> invasions, and fight for their country; that the inhabitants thereof
> may live peaceable and quiet lives, enjoying their respective rights
> and privileges; and since therefore civil government is a business of
> so much care, and since our rulers are so solicitous, and constantly
> concerned for our good, and which cannot be done without great
> expense, as well as diligence, we ought cheerfully to pay tribute to
> them."
>
> John Knox, the sixteenth century Calvinist leader in Scotland, was
> sentenced to death by the Catholics in 1556. Knox said that the king
> and the lower level magistrates were not placed above the people to
> rule as tyrants. He said the chief duty of magistrates is to punish
> evil doing, and to support the well doers (Skinner, 1978, p.55).
> John Knox pointed out that Romans 13 defines the duty of rulers as one
> of punishing those who do evil, and to protect the people from those
> who would harm them..
>
> Like any other text in the Bible, Romans 13 needs to be interpreted in
> light of other Bible verses.
>
> One text that is often used to set some limits upon the interpretation
> of Romans 13 to mean we must obey rulers regardless of their policies,
> actions or words is Acts 5: 29. The Pharisees and the high priest
> had warned Peter and the other apostles not to teach in Christ's name.
> Peter then said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
>
> If a ruler requires a Christian to do something that clearly violates
> a moral law in the Bible, then Acts 5: 29 should be applied rather
> than the view that Romans 13 commands us to obey the government
> regardless of what it does.
>
> There is more in the Bible that can be used to interpret Romans 13.
> The Ten Commandments and other moral laws in the Old and New
> Testaments were given to protect us from murder, theft,
> wife-stealing, harm to an unborn child (Exodus 21: 22), from being
> cheated by usury (Exodus 22: 25, etc) and some other harmful acts of
> others.
>
> The Old Testament speaks often of the rights of people. Psalm 9: 4
> says "For thou hast maintained my right and my cause." Right is from
> mishpat, justice. Psalm 9: 4 says God will maintain the right to
> justice of the Psalmist.
>
> Psalm 140: 12 says "I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of
> the afflicted, and the right of the poor." Afflicted is from aniy,
> humble, or lowly in circumstances, and poor is from ebyown, destitute.
> Some other texts that promise protection for the rights of the people
> are Proverbs 29: 7, and Proverbs 31: 9.
>
> "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write
> grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from
> judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people...
> (Isaiah 10: 1-2)." This is a warning from the Lord to rulers not to
> take away the rights of the people, especially of the poor. If the
> rulers make and enforce laws that cause harm or injustice to the
> powerless, then God says woe to them. This also applies to judges who
> judge unrighteously; it also applies to the police and prosecuting
> attorneys who charge innocent people with crimes.
>
> Then Isaiah 59: 14 says "And judgment is turned away backward, and
> justice standeth afar off : for truth is fallen in the street, and
> equity cannot enter." Judgment is turned away backward and stands
> far off in many of our courts now. Equity is defined by Black's Law
> Dictionary as "...the spirit and habit of fairness, justness and right
> dealing..." The confusion in America from our having become the
> Babylon of Prophecy means that moral standards have been lowered and
> many morals have been lost, and as Isaiah 59: 14 explains, "truth is
> fallen in the street." We hear too many lies and are confronted with
> too much deception from government, the media and others.
>
> The American rulers at this point in time have failed to a great
> extent in their duty to punish evil and to reward good works.
>
> And the ruling elite have been moving behind the scenes to fully
> reestablish the old divine right of rulers so that just about all the
> people will be willing to obey them, no matter how oppressive they
> are.. They might then come out from behind the
> curtains into the open, perhaps when the devil, their leader, has come down
> "...unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but
> a short time (Revelation 12: 12)."   Bernard
>

?" Did   not the
> "ruler," that is, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, shoot and kill Vicki Weaver
> from a distance away in August of 1992 when Daddy Bush was president?
> Earlier U.S. Marshals shot and killed fourteen year old Sammy Weaver
> in the back, and killed his dog Striker.
>
> Quentin Skinner (l978, p. 206) says that the Calvinists "...took over
> and reiterated the arguments in favor of forcible resistance which the
> Lutherans had already developed in the 1530's, and had subsequently
> revised in order to legitimize the war against the Emperor fought by
> the Schalkaldic league after 1546." The Emperor was a Catholic.
>
> Swiss Calvinist Pierre Viret (1511-1571) had said in his Remonstrances
> (1550) that inferior magistrates are powers ordained by God with a
> duty to protect the people against supreme rulers when the supreme
> rulers fall into ungodliness or tyranny.
>
> "Inferior magistrates" would be state governors, state legislatures,
> and county and city governments. Yet the Virey idea that lower level
> government should protect the people against tyranny by the highest
> level rulers is not made explicit in the U.S. Constitution. The 1787
> Constitution, according to historian Gordon Wood in The Creation of
> the American Republic (1969), was not fully based upon the English
> republican ideology of opposition between the people's freedom and the
> power of the government. The Constitution of 1787 was, Wood, said,
> "...intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the
> democratic tendencies of the period."
>
> The powers of American state government, in relation to the power of
> the federal government, are rather weakly supported by the Tenth
> Amendment. The Tenth Amendment, which is not really an amendment but
> more a part of the original Constitution, says "The powers not
> delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to
> the states respectively..." The Amendment seems to assume that the
> powers of the federal government really are limited to those powers
> enumerated in Section 8 of Article One. The Tenth Amendment gives no
> powers to state and local governments to resist the federal government
> when it over-steps the specific powers given to it in Article One,
> Section 8 - or when the federal power becomes ungodly and tyrannical,
> and kills its citizens without moral or legal common law
> justification. I know that some U.S. cities have passed bills against
> the Patriot Act of the federal government - but this does not mean
> that Act is outlawed in the jurisdiction of those cities.
>
> John Knox (1505-1572), a Scottish Calvinist, and Christopher Goodman
> (1520-1603), apparently an Englishman, came up with the doctrine that
> it is the duty of each citizen and of the "whole multitude" to
> maintain and defend the moral laws of God against their own rulers and
> lesser magistrates (Skinner, 1978, p.237).

At this time, however, Christians are not called to make physical war against an evil government.
>
> Calvinist John Ponet (1514-1556) taught that when the people allow
> rulers to become idolators and wicked that God will punish the people
> with famine, pestilence and wars.
>
> But what about Romans 13: 1-7? The Catholics and the Church of
> England interpret Romans 13 to mean that the ruler has a divine right
> to govern the people, given to him by God. The people must obey the
> ruler, or government in all that he or it does.
>
> Romans 13: 1-7 says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
> For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
> God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
> of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
> For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
> then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou
> shalt have praise of the same:   For he is the minister of God to
> thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he
> beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
> revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
> needs to subject, not only for wreath, but also for conscience sake.
> For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers,
> attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all
> their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;
> fear to whom fear; honor to whom honored."
>
> John Gill, in his 18th century commentary on the Bible says of Romans
> 13: 2 that "This is not to be understood, as if magistrates were above
> the laws, and had a lawless power to do as they will without
> opposition; for they are under the law, and liable to the penalty of
> it, in case of disobedience, as others; and when they make their own
> will a law, or exercise a lawless tyrannical power, in defiance of the
> laws of God, and of the land, to the endangering of the lives,
> liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted, as Saul
> was by the people of Israel, when he would have took away the life of
> Jonathan for the breach of an arbitrary law of his own, and that too
> without the knowledge of it, (1 Samuel 14:45) ; but the apostle is
> speaking of resisting magistrates in the right discharge of their
> office, and in the exercise of legal power and authority."
>
> On Romans 13: 4, John Gill goes on to say that "He is a minister of
> God's appointing and commissioning, that acts under him, and for him,
> is a kind of a vicegerent of his, and in some, sense represents him;
> and which is another reason why men ought to be subject to him; and
> especially since he is appointed for their "good", natural, moral,
> civil, and spiritual, as Pareus observes: for natural good, for the
> protection of men's natural lives, which otherwise would be in
> continual danger from wicked men; for moral good, for the restraining
> of vice, and encouragement of virtue; profaneness abounds exceedingly,
> as the case is, but what would it do if there were no laws to forbid
> it, or civil magistrates to put them in execution? for civil good, for
> the preservation of men's properties, estates, rights, and liberties,
> which would be continually invaded, and made a prey of by others; and
> for spiritual and religious good, as many princes and magistrates have
> been; a sensible experience of which we have under the present
> government of these kingdoms, allowing us a liberty to worship God
> according to our consciences, none making us afraid, and is a reason
> why we should yield a cheerful subjection to it."
>
> Again, Gill seems to be saying that Paul is describing Godly rulers,
> and that these Godly rulers should be respected and obeyed, as long as
> they are Godly.
>
> Romans 13: 6 says to pay tribute to rulers, who are God's ministers.
> Gill comments on this verse in saying that the actions of rulers are
> "...not of laying, collecting, and receiving tribute, but of service
> and ministry under God, for the welfare of their subjects; for rightly
> to administer the office of magistracy requires great pains, care,
> diligence, and assiduity; and as great wisdom and thoughtfulness in
> making laws for the good of the body, so a diligent constant concern
> to put them in execution, to secure the lives of subjects from cut
> throats and murderers, and their properties and estates from thieves
> and robbers; and they are not only obliged diligently to attend to
> such service at home, but to keep a good lookout abroad, and penetrate
> into, and watch the designs of foreign enemies, to defend from their
> invasions, and fight for their country; that the inhabitants thereof
> may live peaceable and quiet lives, enjoying their respective rights
> and privileges; and since therefore civil government is a business of
> so much care, and since our rulers are so solicitous, and constantly
> concerned for our good, and which cannot be done without great
> expense, as well as diligence, we ought cheerfully to pay tribute to
> them."
>
> John Knox, the sixteenth century Calvinist leader in Scotland, was
> sentenced to death by the Catholics in 1556. Knox said that the king
> and the lower level magistrates were not placed above the people to
> rule as tyrants. He said the chief duty of magistrates is to punish
> evil doing, and to support the well doers (Skinner, 1978, p.55).
> John Knox pointed out that Romans 13 defines the duty of rulers as one
> of punishing those who do evil, and to protect the people from those
> who would harm them..
>
> Like any other text in the Bible, Romans 13 needs to be interpreted in
> light of other Bible verses.
>
> One text that is often used to set some limits upon the interpretation
> of Romans 13 to mean we must obey rulers regardless of their policies,
> actions or words is Acts 5: 29. The Pharisees and the high priest
> had warned Peter and the other apostles not to teach in Christ's name.
> Peter then said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
>
> If a ruler requires a Christian to do something that clearly violates
> a moral law in the Bible, then Acts 5: 29 should be applied rather
> than the view that Romans 13 commands us to obey the government
> regardless of what it does.
>
> There is more in the Bible that can be used to interpret Romans 13.
> The Ten Commandments and other moral laws in the Old and New
> Testaments were given to protect us from murder, theft,
> wife-stealing, harm to an unborn child (Exodus 21: 22), from being
> cheated by usury (Exodus 22: 25, etc) and some other harmful acts of
> others.
>
> The Old Testament speaks often of the rights of people. Psalm 9: 4
> says "For thou hast maintained my right and my cause." Right is from
> mishpat, justice. Psalm 9: 4 says God will maintain the right to
> justice of the Psalmist.
>
> Psalm 140: 12 says "I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of
> the afflicted, and the right of the poor." Afflicted is from aniy,
> humble, or lowly in circumstances, and poor is from ebyown, destitute.
> Some other texts that promise protection for the rights of the people
> are Proverbs 29: 7, and Proverbs 31: 9.
>
> "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write
> grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from
> judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people...
> (Isaiah 10: 1-2)." This is a warning from the Lord to rulers not to
> take away the rights of the people, especially of the poor. If the
> rulers make and enforce laws that cause harm or injustice to the
> powerless, then God says woe to them. This also applies to judges who
> judge unrighteously; it also applies to the police and prosecuting
> attorneys who charge innocent people with crimes.
>
> Then Isaiah 59: 14 says "And judgment is turned away backward, and
> justice standeth afar off : for truth is fallen in the street, and
> equity cannot enter." Judgment is turned away backward and stands
> far off in many of our courts now. Equity is defined by Black's Law
> Dictionary as "...the spirit and habit of fairness, justness and right
> dealing..." The confusion in America from our having become the
> Babylon of Prophecy means that moral standards have been lowered and
> many morals have been lost, and as Isaiah 59: 14 explains, "truth is
> fallen in the street." We hear too many lies and are confronted with
> too much deception from government, the media and others.
>
> The American rulers at this point in time have failed to a great
> extent in their duty to punish evil and to reward good works.
>
> And the ruling elite have been moving behind the scenes to fully
> reestablish the old divine right of rulers so that just about all the
> people will be willing to obey them, no matter how oppressive they
> are.. They might then come out from behind the
> curtains into the open, perhaps when the devil, their leader, has come down
> "...unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but
> a short time (Revelation 12: 12)."   Bernard
>