Romans 13
In our last article on Romans 13 we pointed out that the word in Romans 13
translated from the Greek as "power" is actually translated liberty in 1
Corinthians 8:9.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/Romans13.html
Let every soul be subject unto the higher 'liberty'. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Romans 13 1
The word 'exousia' in the Greek actually means the "right to choose" rather
than the power of governments over men. Unless you are talking about a
government that has the right to choose for its subjects, a free people would
have the higher power [right to choose] not an elite group within a government
who makes laws for the rest. Anything other than the right to choose in the
hand of the people is totalitarianism.
Some people objected to what they called my interpretation of the Greek word
exousia. But is it I who has altered the word or has the world altered it
before I even looked at the text? Below you will see just a small sample of the
sophistry that modern Christians have already fallen prey too.
Christ came to set men free not to deliver them into the bondage of governments
like Egypt. Early Christians were part of a government appointed by Christ and
accepted by thousands at Pentecost. They were kicked out of the system built by
the Pharisees of and began to live according to those precepts of charity and
the perfect law of liberty, with free will offerings to a servant government.
The ministers appointed by Christ were told they were not to be like the
governments of the other nations who offered benefits to the people but
exercised authority one over the other. They were not to use the right arm of
government to enforce the charitable contributions on the left side of
government. All the offerings in Christ's government were freewill
contributions.
This article is on the net in its entirety at:
Http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/Romans13.html#A5
Which Definition?
No translation of the Bible is perfect because words are not perfect. Although
it is reasonable as a matter of faith to believe that the original authors were
inspired there is no logical reason to believe that one translation is inspired
more than another. Words are only "signs of ideas" and there is often more than
one idea included in each word.
Words can have a variety of meanings and are therefore are always subjective.
The word powers has over a dozen different definitions in The American Heritage
alone. The first is "The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively."
This of course includes the idea of liberty and freedom to choose to act.
The sixth definition is, "The might of a nation, political organization, or
similar group." This could lend to the idea that their is a superior power or
government we are to be subject too by God putting a government in power. And
then there is the fifteenth definition is, "powers Christianity. The sixth of
the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology."
So, which of these definitions should we apply to Paul's Romans 13 to say
nothing of the thirteen other definition found in the Heritage Dictionary for
the same word powers? This of course is why we should go back to the original
manuscript in order to determine what the original intent of the author was and
therefore what is the truth for us today.
We have already seen earlier in this article that there are more than a half a
dozen different words translated into power in the New Testament alone. We
should all examine the original Greek text to determine the intent of the
author was and which definition of a word or meaning should be used or applied
in the translated text.
Even the religiously skewed Strong's clearly states that the word exousia is
used in the sense of ability and uses words like "capacity, competency,
freedom..." By pointing out that exousia is translated in the King James Bible
as power 69 times, authority 29 times, right twice and liberty, jurisdiction,
strength once each, we still cannot establish what the prime meaning of the
word was when it was written down. We can establish that its meaning leans
towards the idea of capacity and power of choice than exclusively the power of
government.
Twisting or Straightening?
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/Romans13.html#A6
I have been accused of twisting the inspired text simply by examining deeper
into its origins. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I simply quote
sources including the same Bible translation from which we began. Those who
cannot accept the idea that they have been deluded by 500 years of post
Inquisition sophistry may find it difficult to accept the truth no matter how
clearly it is laid out. One person wrote, "So, produce an ancient Bible or
manuscript pre inquisition that has your reading."
There is a clear and reasonably concise pre inquisition Bible and manuscript
available. It is the early Greek texts. But again we are faced with current
religious sophistry if we are going to use only modern religion based Greek
Lexicons. We need to discover not what people have been led to believe the text
means but what those words meant at the time they were included in the original
manuscript. There is fairly conclusive evidence that modern Church folks have
been steadily deluded through the years by design or ignorance.
To look at how the word exousia was used by the Greeks and Romans in the days
of Christ and the authors of those sacred texts we can simply examine the Greek
scholars of those days.
The Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms which states that exousia means
"right".10
Aristotle actually states that, "The right (exousia) to do anything one
wishes..." (VI. 4.1318b38-1319a4) 11
And in Plato's notes "Greek words for freedom (is) eleutheros (liberal/Free),
exousia (Freedom/Power to do something), ..."12
Again in Bryn Mawr Classical Review we see, "Enomaos maintained that we are
absolutely masters of the most necessary things (52-53). Brancacci notices that
the term used by Enomaos to refer to human freedom is not the typical Cynic one
(eleutheria), but exousia, which expresses 'the new concept of freedom in
opposition to the already defunct and unhelpful eleutheria'."13
The evidence goes on that exousia does not mean governmental top down power but
rather the right to choose. Exousia clearly relates to a capacity or a right to
decide and certainly does not inherently mean governments or as the Living
Bible would have you accept, policeman. We know that men are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights or liberties. We also know that some
governments of men like Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh and Caesar are endowed by their
creator with certain rights. But such governments are created by the hands of
men. They are idols vested with only those right and powers which men give to
them.
Governments are not instituted by God but by men who choose to create
governments. Governments operate on privilege, more specifically by the
suffrage14 of the people which may or may not be lawfully revocable depending
on the nature and terms of their compact, constitution and covenant. The rights
granted to governments are rights first granted to men by God.
Men have the option of vesting the right to choose and an accompanying
authority in government or to maintain that power and right as free men under
God. Rights are responsibilities. When men make government responsible then
governments obtain rights. Only to that degree do governments have power or
authority.
When men chose to vest responsibilities in men like Saul God warned them
through Samuel not to do so.15 Power corrupts. But the subject in this article
on Romans 13 is that exousia is the right of choice which was originally in the
hands of men. It is the right of choice granted first to the individual that is
the higher authority spoken of in Romans 13.
If men consistently give up their responsibility through sloth and their rights
through covetousness social compacts it is no wonder that they end up as
merchandise or human resources of authoritarian Benefactors.16 Christ preached
a kingdom of responsible, love and generous Samaritan offerings, a government
of love of neighbor.
If we do not have the humility to recognize our own error and failure then we
will remain subject to the sophistic delusions of those who wish to keep you
subject in body and in spirit rather than set free in spirit and truth.
The Covenants of the gods17 outlines many ways in which we physically become
subject to the world but the reason we fall prey to such ancient schemes is
that we fail to love the character of our Father in heaven. We are slothful and
covetous and will not forgive and give of ourselves for the sake of our
neighbor.
Peace on your house
Gregory@hisholychurch.net
Discussion and News lists including the Kingdom News.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/emaillst.asp
congregation group
http://www.hisholychurch.net/csubscription.asp
Thy Kingdom Comes
http://www.hisholychurch.net/pdfiles/book2/
Kingdom News List subscription control page
http://www.hisholychurch.net/subscribe.html
http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/Romans13.html#A2
Footnotes:
10 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
11 Lawmakers and Ordinary People in Aristotle, by Paul Bullen (1996)
http://paul.bullen.com/BullenLawmakers.html
12 http://www.uiowa.edu/~lsa/bkh/lla/plato
13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.08.19 On this issue, see S. Bobzien,
Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford 1998, chap. 6 (not quoted
by Brancacci, but listed in the
bibliography).http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2001/2001-08-19.html
14 The Voice of the People http://www.hisholychurch.net/news/voteking.asp
15 1 Samuel 8
16 Lu 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
But ye shall not be so:
17 http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html
Kingdom News List subscription control page
http://www.hisholychurch.net/subscribe.html
|
