Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!
Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.
THE MEME:
At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.
A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.
In this case, here are some issues:
One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.
To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
“God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.
CONCLUSION
A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.
NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.
Expedition 44 founders, Dr. Matt and Dr. Ryan have a book coming out in 2025 entitled Principalities, Powers, and Allegiances which deals in large part with the interpretation of Romans 13. Its rather scholarly so let me give an overview in fairly plain words. If you want to work through 1300 references and do your due diligence on the subject, well then, you will need to wait for the 300-page book!
As we approach texts such as Romans 13, theologians categorize them in two ways- submission and conflict. The submission texts of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 use the language of submission or subjection to authorities and have been used to frame a potentially positive view of the government and kingdom structures in the world. Though we show in our book that not all interpret these texts in that manner. Runge summarizes this submission approach to these texts saying,
Paul’s rationale for obedience has nothing to do with the rulers’ godliness, competence, or any other qualification. Instead, his call for submission to their authority is grounded in God’s authority. The only authorities that exist are the ones whom God has placed there, according to His sovereign plan… Although Paul is silent regarding unjust rulers, Peter is not. Peter describes an example of subjecting oneself to a master even if he is unjust (1 Pet 2:18–19). He takes the position that even in the face of unjust authority, it is still better to submit.[1]
The conflict text we examine in our forthcoming book is Revelation 13 and is often based on anti-imperial sentiments. The thrust to the interpretation of this text is based on which theological school one lands in when approaching the letter of Revelation. If one places this as purely future events then it has little bearing on how one views government in the present, especially if the church will be “raptured” at the time of the “Beast’s Government”: a “revived Roman empire,” according to some futurist interpretations.[2] (Namely dispensationalism views such as the popular pre-tribulation view.) Other approaches to this passage see this as something from the past yet can be applied to all believers of all times within the view that the Bible was written for us but not to us. In that perspective, it was written to seven churches in Asia Minor in the first century as the primary audience and it must have meant something for them in the first century context of the Roman empire and the emperor cult. Putting it purely in the future removes those churches from the context because they are purely an allegory of church history eras.[3]
For this article, we will only be looking at Romans 13, but I would be remise if I didn’t point out it’s context and relationship to other similar texts within the lens of scripture.
CONTEXT OF ROMANS 13
Whenever you dive into exegesis context is king (well actually Jesus is king, but you know what I mean!) As I indicate above, we need to first determine who was the intended audience and how would they have taken the text, epistle, message, or letter. Once you figure that out than “maybe” you can apply it to your own situation. (This hermeneutic is often referred to as textures of interpretation.) Romans was likely written while Paul was staying in the house of Gaius in Corinth. The epistle was probably transcribed by Paul’s amanuensis Tertius and is dated AD late 55 to early 57. We are told in certain textual variants including subscripts explicitly mentioning Romans 16 that it was delivered by Phoebe who was a Deacon. This letter likely would have been distributed in a similar fashion to the rest of the NT letters in a teaching / preaching style by the one making the delivery to a circuit of communities. Phoebe lived in Cenchreae, a port town near the city of Corinth. Corinth was where Paul was staying when he wrote the letter to the Romans.
It is important to remember that Romans was written before Paul went to prison and many scholars believe it to have been that catalyst that sent him that way with language very much asserting authority to King Jesus which was deemed as rival to the emperor of Rome. Romans is written at the End of Claudius’ edict after he evicted Jews or Jewish leaders in 49 AD. In 54 AD Claudius dies and Nero takes the throne asserting his uncle Claudius to be an “idiotes” and welcomed back everyone to Rome. This would seem to be a very political move to boost popularity towards his goal of building the empire, rather than a direct support towards Christians. We would assert this by seeing that within a few short years he begins to persecute Christians throwing lavish garden parties that are lit by the ambience of Christians dipped in tar and set on fire. Josephus would go on to note “in the name of Christus” as coding that led to disturbances between Nero and Christianity. Although some of the Epistle of Romans seems to almost carry a secret code as to not bring imminent wrath from Nero, it still clearly states that Jesus is king (and not Nero) flying directly in the face of the empire. I don’t think anyone would argue that it was enough to have gotten Paul on the Roman radar to be in trouble as he had been sent to prison because he was accused by the governor of Syria of acts of violence in 52 AD. We get no record of Paul doing anything violent, but opposing Rome by your speech was often treated as treason and dealt with in the same sense as violent rebellions. Make no mistake, he was viewed as an insurgent by Roman authorities on multiple occasions.
There is also a power shift in the church transitioning from Jew and Gentile creating the context of the struggle of the book of Romans. The theme of the strong and weak is perhaps viewed as Paul’s main mission in Rome to live out the gospel of unity. Paul has a greater vision and is preparing for His mission to Spain asking them to live in unity as he starts to take the gospel to the end of the earths. His message takes on the persona of, “If we can’t get it right here how are we going to go to reach the people at the ends of the earth?“
ROMANS 1:1-4 starts right out by saying JESUS IS KING (JESUS IS LORD CAESAR IS NOT) stating that Paul is a Bondservant of Christ (the king, the anointed one). This is first century “doulos” language setting apart Paul as a willing “slave” for the gospel. It is important to note that these would certainly have been interpreted as “anti” words in regard to a Roman national political kingdom. The text uses the term “son of God” which is a title for caesar as well as “curios” as the title for Lord demanded as a “self-title” by the emperor.
When you approach this book from a Deuteronomy 32 worldview, Romans 1:21-23 frames humans as image bearers that rejected God and results in God handing them over to their own desires or consequences (which is the biblical definition of God’s wrath.) In a similar understanding, Yahweh appoints Elohim over each nation to be cultivated by a spiritual being and that spiritual being essentially “falls” as they allow themselves to be worshipped in the place of Yahweh. They “take the praise” and become another god before Yahweh and become the “household” image if idolatry. Humanity rejects God and God hands the people and the fallen spiritual being over to the “world” and those principalities. The Romans text uses the Greek word paradidomi which specifically draws on the fact that they were handed over to “sin and death” which are seen as demonic “powers” that the world serves. Romans then makes the assertion that because we serve KING JESUS, we are no longer to be slaves to these demonic forces. The author of Romans then projects Nero as aligned with the demonic forces and those that stand with Jesus as RIVAL to those powers in their own kingdom of Jesus. This is partly where we get the idea of re-vival – we are working against the “rival” world (those not in allegiant faith to Jesus) to take back what was lost and reclaim them solely for JESUS and His kingdom.
It is also important to understand the basic outline of Romans:
ROMANS 1-4 is one literary unit – Christ is King, and Jesus makes a way for everyone to Him
ROMANS 5-8 We are slaves to sin and can be set free and delivered into becoming part of Christ’s kingdom (EXODUS MOTIF)
Romans 6 Baptism – the RED SEA is seen as a victory over the spiritual beings that seek to enslave us to the powers, principalities, and kingdoms of this earth
Romans 7 is the Law (Jew / Gentiles see differently but need unity, they are part of the same Jesus kingdom and need to be in spiritual alignment)
Romans 8 Restoring the promise land and framing a return to Edenic thinking
Romans 9-11 goes into Jewish ancestry matters which may not mean much to us today, but was crucial to the grafting of the new covenant kingdom church (ALL ISRAEL)
Romans 12-16 one literary unity tied into together. As basic as it sounds, hermeneutically we shouldn’t read Romans 13 without 12 first; and certainly, shouldn’t be forming doctrines based on one line pull phrases. According to Hermeneutic laws, we need to read Romans 12 with 13. Romans 12 serves as a pre-context to everything established in chapter 13.
The basis of ROMANS 12 is to be a Living sacrifice; don’t be conformed to the world but be transformed to the way of Christ and unified in His kingdom. At the end of the chapter Paul basically summarizes the sermon on the mount. This is the Jesus Manifesto and charge to live for CHRIST ALONE. This is “love in action” verbiage aimed straight at the church. It answers the question of “How does the church deal with those outsides of the church or in the rival empire?” It is exilic language reminiscent of Jeremiah 29.
THERE IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS TO THE PRIMARY TARGET OF ROM 12-13
There is obviously some empirical language as I described with the opening words of Romans directly and emphatically targeting CAESAR himself, but much of this is also likely aimed at local government. The target doesn’t really matter much IMO, other than the impact of those desiring theologically to apply the text to local and/or national government. There is an argument for 2 voices, but I lean towards local authority. I might even say that in the end where I land is that the text is a call for discipleship under the way of Jesus. There may or may not be two voices but if you arrive where I have, it doesn’t really matter. Romans isn’t seeking to give us a full theology of the state or federal government. Some want to revolt, and others are deciding if they should pay the local dues or not, Paul is more concerned about the overall picture or the way of Jesus.
Rome had smaller government entities entrusted to local magistrates and each city would try to “outdo” the next in their adulterated loyalty displays to the emperor. As we read between the lines, (which again was likely necessary in the dispersing of this letter), we get the idea that Christians weren’t to participate in these sorts of things. They likely were encouraged by those in the church (right or wrong) to stop paying “taxes” or “dues” that supported the local corrupt tax collectors and the near worship of the emperor. This was largely because these dues for civic upkeep often went directly to the neighborhood shrine that honored (worshipped) the emperor and/or local gods. When Christians refused to participate it was seen as unpatriotic to ROME and the emperor. However, it was clear that most Christians weren’t “not paying dues” as a direct act of anarchy or rebellion, but rather the simple fact that their allegiance was simply to a different King. Christians often believed they were called to live in the shadow of the empire but not by the ways of the empire.
N. T. Wright [4] notes that Romans is:
…neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.
Textually, Romans 13:1–7 is a fragment dealing with obedience to earthly powers is considered by some, for example James Kallas,[5] to be an interpolation.[6] Even Paul Tillich (who is known for His excellent book on systematic theology that I don’t agree with), along with the great majority of evangelical scholars, accepts the historical authenticity of Romans 13:1–7, but claims it has been misinterpreted by churches with an anti-revolutionary bias:
One of the many politico-theological abuses of biblical statements is the understanding of Paul’s words [Romans 13:1–7] as justifying the anti-revolutionary bias of some churches, particularly the Lutheran. But neither these words nor any other New Testament statement deals with the methods of gaining political power. In Romans, Paul is addressing eschatological enthusiasts, not a revolutionary political movement.[7]
CHIASTIC PATTERN
It may not come as a surprise to most, but the book of Romans contains several chiastic patterns in order to aid its readers in the learning of the most important message of all time: The good news of Jesus Christ. Chiasmus is an inverted parallelism; it presents a series of words or ideas followed by a second presentation of similar words or ideas, but in reverse order. The Old Testament has hundreds of chiasms (the book of Isaiah alone has more than one hundred), varying in length from four lines to entire chapters. The most obvious sense of this might simply be referring to the outline above to which the beginning chapters and end chapters are both to be seen as bookends of the literary unit. On the surface this chiasm may not seem very profound, but it actually teaches an important truth about family togetherness—and about families centering themselves in the temple. However, it isn’t always clear why the author wrote in chiasmus and how our interpretation should or might be influenced by the literary device. Perhaps the repetition of words in balanced, symmetrical structures encourages and enhances learning and memorization. Also, repetition of key points or themes emphasizes the crux of a prophetic message. Finally, chiasmus encourages reading of important texts by making them aesthetically pleasing to the reader. Could a word have been chosen over another because of rhythmic value? Perhaps. Could an emphasis be understood as a contranym or need for repetition? Perhaps. All of these things should go into your textual criticism as a texture of interpretation for faithful understanding and application. Here is the chiastic structure of our text as the larger sections and smaller sections follow this style. I will leave interpretive deductions to you. It would certainly help to read this in Greek if you are able.
ROMANS 13:1-2
It is interesting that Romans 13 comes right out referring to governing authorities as those who have power over you. The transliteration gloss of our English word “authority” is the Greek “exousia” which I want to point out is Paul’s word for the fallen spiritual beings, the principalities and powers, or what we more modernly refer to as demons. Of course, the phrase takes on other dimensions in other parts of scripture, but here I would argue for a Hebraic use of the terminology. Essentially, he is calling the kingdoms of the world, their governments and magistrates that rule over everyone demonic. (Dionysius Halicarnassus 8, 44; 11, 32 also suggests this). I Corinthians 2 uses this same language under the same pretenses. The Authority is God’s. “let us be subject” is the Greek hupotassó from which tasso takes on a passive tense and comes from a military “filing” or order. In other words, our God is in order over the rulers but isn’t putting a stamp of approval on their actions. It is similar to a librarian ordering books (you might even say having power over their ability to influence) but not by being the author of all of them. In the same way, God hands over nations to be managed by the spiritual beings or sons of God which eventually continues through their falling away but God isn’t morally approving anything that they have done, God lines them up or simply uses them by divine purpose in many ways regardless of their proclivity towards Him. Perhaps we need to identify this as a tool that God allows and possibly uses but not “ordains”; or perhaps we just need to “leave it alone” with the understanding that His ways are higher than ours and are quite dynamic. God used Babylon to punish pagan nations, but obviously the way that Babylon does this isn’t natively of GOD. God isn’t aligned in it (and we shouldn’t be either.) God allows them, but doesn’t set them into place. That isn’t his character. We are reminded of this by Hosea 8:4 -“They [Israel] have set up kings but not by me.” What Romans is asserting is that all authority is from God and this bold statement was certainly viewed as undermining Caesar’s power. Paul was boldly proclaiming that Caesar HAS NO REAL AUTHORITY. God is the one with power not Caesar. We are reminded of this order as it very much takes on Genesis 1:1 language and therefore suggest a theological consistent view over the lens of scripture.
BE SUBJECT AND RESIST is a word play in Greek. Both words, hypotassesthō and antitassomenosare Hapax legomenon’s (which I state for your consideration). They are in the perfect active participle which means they are past and coming into future. We are certainly charged with an overtone to not be a poor witness or ambassadors of Jesus (and to protect the witness of the kingdom community).
Submit here is again hupotasso. To be clear it doesn’t mean to “obey.” It means to voluntarily yield or put in a line (words of order). Ephesians 5 says submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. 1 Peter suggests that submission was for GOD’s sake. Paul could have used the Greek work hupakouó which was the more common word to “OBEY”, but he doesn’t, instead he uses a word for submit. Paul reserves the word “OBEY” for GOD ALONE.
We may need to take into consideration the context of Romans 12 from the beginning. There are Christians mixed with Jews and Zealots trying to fight to take back Jerusalem by robbing temples and all kinds of crazy stuff. Paul in Romans 2 seems to be speaking against this. Don’t cause trouble, be self-sacrificial as Jesus was on the cross. You overcome by winning them over through LOVE. Perhaps the Christians (Jews and gentiles) in Rome were looking back on their brethren starting to get a bit “crazy” or “un-Ruly” in Jerusalem wondering if they should follow suit and Paul seems to starkly say “no.”
I need to also point out the contranym language that could be influenced by the chiastic structure but maybe not. Lots of people in the Bible are disobeying the government in the name of God. Mary and Joseph flee disobeying Herod, in Acts 9 and in II Corinthians 11 Paul seems to be boasting about disobeying the government on multiple occasions (although this can be argued.) But to be clear, we don’t get the fight back language from Paul. If you think scripture suggests or is telling you to fight back or take a stand politically elsewhere in the Bible you are welcome to try to deduct that, but hermeneutically this passage (and all of Romans) textually doesn’t give you that. That wasn’t Paul’s view, even in the midst of revolt and anarchy at the time this was written. It would have been very easy for him to suggest such a thing or action of that nature if that was his intention, but it simply isn’t there. Not many years later, the Christian zealots go to war against Rome which even included the ESSENES, some of whom seemed to be very pacifistic (and likely listened to Paul’s words here) while others were literally preparing for war wanting God to send down hellfire and brimstone and legions of angels against the Romans which obviously God didn’t do. He didn’t do it at the cross, why would people think he would do it now? Seems like 2000 years later people are still thinking that way despite the words of both Jesus and Paul. (And I own a gun range, so I sort of wish that’s the way Jesus operated, but He doesn’t. That sword in the book of Revelation isn’t what you want it to be!)
In Peter, (which our book really gets into) he says they’re appointed to praise good deeds and punish evil deeds. In other words, political rulers might or might not uphold righteousness or justice, but it isn’t within God’s direct hand. When people wrong other people, the government should punish them, but God’s retributive justice isn’t on the line.
ROMANS 13:3-5
Allegiance to Christ might look like opposition to the world. Acts 5 says we must obey Christ; in other words, we are living this denial of the world out because of our submission to Christ, not simply because we want to be rebellious towards the world. This looks like a community next to or within Babylon but as a light showing a better more beautiful way. We are active in our love for our enemies and praising those who persecute them, this is the main thrust of what it means to be a prophetic witness.
Perhaps the term “BEARING THE SWORD” in our age derails people. For instance, Wayne Grudem who is a statist says, “sword in the hands of a good government is God’s designated weapon to defeat evil doers.” On the other hand, Preston Sprinkle says, “Using Romans 13:3 isn’t to be used as God’s way of ruling the world is out of context for a warfare policy or policing nations of the world. This isn’t a chapter on How God rules the world.” I would tend to personally to say that exegetically Sprinkle is significantly more faithful to the text here. I see God allowing the sword to be used by a government but not charging or designating it.
The sword was not about capital punishment in Romans or Revelation and to make such conclusions would be require a good amount of theological gymnastics. We simply don’t have grounds to go that way within the text. I am aware that some have tried to make this point by saying things such as pointing out that criminals were typically executed by beheading with a sword (crucifixion was reserved for the worst criminals of the lowest classes); but it is a stretch to things that the exegesis of the text suggests this (whether you think the Bible suggests this theology in other places or not.) Brian Zahnd has an excellent POST on this and is a quick read.
There is also a consideration that the sword (Greek machaira) could be coded for first century language referring to the local magistrate or tax police. The Greek word means judicial authority. We have to remember this is an HONOR/SHAME society (not guilty innocent society as we are in the West). It is also worth exploring the term used for governing authorities sometimes translated as “minister of God for your good.” The Greek is diakonos and is used by Paul referring to those using their gifts in the church. But the word itself doesn’t seem to take on good or evil, consider more like a chaos monster. It is a device that can go either way. (It isn’t the fork that makes people fat.) If we parse the word into the Hebrew equivalent, we find that OT pagan nations are referred to by the same Hebrew word. In Isaiah 44 it is used to describe the king of Persia. In Jeremiah 27 and 43 it is said of Nebuchadnezzar and in Isaiah 10 it describes the nation of Assyria. These are PAGAN DICTATORS. God uses them as instruments of his hand, but God doesn’t approve of their measures and certainly hasn’t “commissioned,” “anointed,” or “ordained” them. I will also remind you that ministers aren’t always good guys. Sometimes they are evil. So, at the very least we have no grounds to use this verse to defend entanglement of the state.God’s way was theocracy which resulted in a KING JESUS covenant and kingdom. Man’s ways were to establish kings and rulers in the place of what God says is His.
“When Paul adds the thought that these people are appointed by God to their position of authority, he simply cannot have in mind the empire or the hierarchy of government. Interpreting his words in that way would require us to set aside everything we know about the Tanakh’s treatment of evil or idolatrous rulers. How can we imagine that Paul ignores the stories of Daniel and the Israelites in captivity, or the verdicts God ascribes to many of the kings of Israel? Is Paul asserting that God’s judgment on these men in power is misplaced? Are we ready to endorse them as God’s choices for leadership when God Himself describes them as wicked?” – Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress Press, 1996).
The Greek word used for sword is machairan and is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used to describe the knife used in circumcision (Joshua 5:2), the sacrificial knife used in the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22:6) and a small dagger (Judges 3:16). It is not the Greek word used to describe the typical military sword of the Roman soldiers. Furthermore, this term is used symbolically for a sign of judicial authority in Roman law which would make the understanding of local authorities or magistrates more fitting. As I suggested earlier, Paul may be using the word as a metaphor for disciplinary action of the synagogue authorities.
ROMANS 13:5
Subjection is usually glossed as yielding or submitting because of conscious sake. Peter uses this as a synonym of allegiance to God’s kingdoms as loyalty language, it is a life aligned towards God. Peter says we are allegiant to a different king so live at peace! The word conscience in 13:5 is the same word used for allegiance in 1 Peter 3.
ROMANS 13:6-7
We see the word for servants/ministers again and I will remind you to interpret as tools of God, not positive or negative. Taxes here seems to be a general toll tax for goods. It is likely linked to the local magistrate or community and perhaps in alignment with the enshrined idolatry towards the gods or emperor. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God. There is an argument that all of money is the world’s here, but that’s a different article. Sticking to the immediate text we can deduct that we are to give yourself wholly to God, this is a hyper link (remez) to what Jesus said regularly. We fear God alone. Honor all people in the image of God.
The government is simply a tool that God may use; as in the OT when He used pagan nations as a tool. (Think of it as a stop gap until we are completely reconciled to new life in Him.) Furthermore, God does not set up or pick leaders of the world. Hosea and 1 Samuel 8 explicitly say this. He actually sees it as a rejection of Himself. “Render” is a hyperlink to render unto Caesar which is about giving Cesar his stupid coin, but you belong to God. His image is on you. Romans13:8 pretty much defeats a nationalist reading of Rom 13. If a Christian wants to do and enforce most of the things in those seven verses.
Christians subvert in love not rebellion.
Theologian Greg Boyd notes:
It was never God’s goal to have humans rule other people. Governments are God’s concession to human sin. They are now a practical necessity in the world, and God uses them to further his purposes (Rom. 13:1-6). But this doesn’t mean that God approves of them … The Kingdom of God, on the other hand, is based on people trusting God as their sole ruler. Kingdom people are therefore to place no more trust or confidence in governments than Jesus did – which is none. If a government’s laws happen to be consistent with the rule of God, we obey them. If they’re not, we follow the example of Jesus and disobey them (cf. Ac. 5:39). But either way, it’s clear that our behavior isn’t dictated by what government says, but by what God says.
DISCIPLESHIP & SHEPHERDING
The application of this project and or any other endeavor for the church should be seen primarily in the distinctness of the kingdom of God. This is a foundational aspect of discipleship. What should be gleaned from our exploration of the biblical narrative is that God’s people are to be disentangled from the world and live in the way of Jesus- as a prophetic witness to the world in the way of the faithful witness.
When the Deuteronomy 32 Worldview is applied to political discipleship and allegiances it should deemphasize political involvement and national allegiances with the world and promote deeper wholehearted devotion to the true king- Jesus. This does not deter from our commitment to love our neighbors outside the church. The kingdom is seen as a light to the nations, living in the way of the king and by the law of the king. It is called to be distinct but not removed – being “Exiles in Babylon” working by the Spirit to re inherit the disinherited people of the nations. This narrative approach sees the Edenic bookends of the Bible as the ideal. In the beginning we saw humanity as kings and priests in Eden and we see the same picture at the end of the Bible when heaven comes to earth after Babylon and the Powers are destroyed.
Although there are numerous passages on discipleship and shepherding, Matthew 28 and the great commission seems to always be the one used to promote such a thing, and rightly so. Perhaps one of my pet peeves is when people misquote the text to say that we are called to “disciple the nations.” Perhaps it is a matter of mincing words, but the text of the great commission is about discipling people not kingdoms (ethnos not bassilas.) People of all tongues and tribes specifically. This isn’t talking about their systems, empires, or borders; it means people. To interpret ethnos as nation states is a hermeneutical gross misinterpretation and unfaithful to the text.
CONCLUSION
Since the beginning of time the Bible tells us we are caught in a spiritual war within the cosmos and we are the central figures of the battle, the segullah (God’s set apart). Perhaps spiritual warfare looks different today than during the freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but perhaps not.
God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.
We are designed in the image of God and thus we are designed to bring forth life in everything that we do, yet if we are not allowing God to do the work beginning on the inside of our minds and hearts, lasting fruit cannot be produced.
The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. (1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17.)
_________________________________________
Written in first person by Dr. Will Ryan with the research and auspice of Dr. Matt Mouzakis
1. Steven E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 227; 230
2. Gregg, Steve, Revelation: Four Views Commentary, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2013), 335
3. See Harold Hunter, Revelation, (Evansville, IN, Trinity Press, 2002), 13 as an example.
4. Leander E. Keck and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 395
5. Romans 13:1–7 an Interpolation? — The Sword and the Ploughshare”. April 24, 2014. Archived from the original on April 24, 2014.
6. “Review of the book Paul and Empire – Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Edited by Richard A. Horsley)”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2013. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
7. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, volume 3 (University of Chicago Press: 1963), p. 389.
Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation. It “saves” in that it reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord’s side in the cosmic war between good and evil.
Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm
Baptism is important. In many ways, I think it is the purest example still intact today of what it meant to make an allegiant statement as they did in Jesus’ day. I am often asked what do you say when you baptize someone? People question as if there is some kind of magical phrase or potion that comes with Baptism. It probably won’t surprise you that I don’t really like the usual repetition of words that often come with baptismal “services”. You have probably heard a pastor proclaim something like, “in obedience to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and upon your profession of faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.” It’s not that I have a big problem with these words, but my issue is more that the repetition of liturgy from scripture today probably wasn’t really what the authors had in mind here and in other similar situations such as the Lord’s prayer. But that doesn’t make it wrong to do so either. The words of baptism are important whether you see the act as a sacrament or more of an allegiant profession of faith. Nearly everyone sees baptism as an outward sign of a decision that has happened in the head and the heart. It’s the best picture of Biblical 1st century allegiance still found within our modern western culture.
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:3-4 ESV
We usually think of life at baptism, not death. We want to think joy and often in western thinking death is not joyous, but Paul’s culture (yes, I continue to arguably allude that Paul wrote Romans or at least had it penned) didn’t think like this. Death was often honorably esteemed and eventually everyone would die.
So why does Paul choose to use the phrase baptized into death? We need to consider how first century followers viewed baptism. Within Judaism, but also other religions baptism was a standard practice of renewal or cleansing.
Without venturing too far into this, baptism in the New Testament signifies an allegiant lifelong commitment (purification) similar to what God asked of Abraham in the covenant of circumcision. There are several connections that are important there.
At the time when this was written, the Greek term (which we transliterate “baptism”) was also a verb used to describe violent acts like drowning. We also see this similar usage in Luke 12:50 and several other places in the Bible. The author wants the reader to consider complete (possibly even violent) death of the old life. All that a person was, any influences you may have been under, any oaths of allegiance, and claims to who you were, even to the point of what you might have been completely immersed (water drowning metaphor) into that kind of living (antinomianism). Paul says it is now dead, all of it.
That’s why when Jesus says the centurion in Matthew 8 has more faith than anyone else (I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith) it was likely a death sentence, and the centurion was ready for that. He literally was ready to give up his oath of allegiance and life spiritually, but also physically. (That would have been the natural consequence for a centurion that placed their allegiance to anyone other than the emperor.)
When we choose to bury all that was us, we in turn accept new life in Christ pledging the reciprocal dance of grace. I have used this expression several times in the book. [The Roman writer] Seneca explains the image of three dancing connected by grace: a benefit ‘passing from hand to hand nevertheless returns to the giver; the beauty of the whole is destroyed if the course is anywhere broken’ (Seneca, [De Beneficiis, meaning “On Favors”] 1.3.3-4). The “three graces” picture visually represented how grace was understood to function in the first century Greco-Roman world in which Paul wrote. Grace (charis) originated with a generous giver usually thought of as the Benefactor. Often the Benefector was introduced to one in need by a mediator. The gift was then accepted by the recipient (client) who in his or her thankfulness and gratitude in turn extended the gift (grace) to others, and this in turn benefited the original giver. The recipient in many ways became a representative of the Benefactor to those in the Benefactors society. Coaching or mentoring towards what the Benefactor desired was often nurtured through the mediator to the recipient. It became a continual relationship between the three entities. In this unbroken circle, everyone was understood to benefit. In this sense, God works through Christ in us as we freely receive the gift and continue to give all of it to others as they are then introduced in the same way through the mediator to the father. Everything is freely given.
We often use the word “adopted” when describing our new relationship in Him. In the Greco Roman Empire adopted beings could not be disowned as natural born children could be. When you were “adopted in” you were guaranteed the new life promised to you by those that gave the pledge to adopt. You were an heir that could not be passed over in terms of inheritance. It was a new covenant that was cut for you. It was a free will reciprocal agreement even though it seemed like the party adopting had everything to lose and nothing to gain; but as we all know with children that isn’t the case. The blessing is reciprocal.
Baptism is a confirmation to lifelong allegiant faith, a way of life given to king Jesus. An entrance into a beautiful, joyful, reciprocal dance of grace but starts by putting to death “all” that you were. You are no longer your own but His, a new creation by which your very life is an image of His whom you belong. He is in you and your life is a temple that bears His name. Your very essence is to bear the light of Jesus and extend that gift to others. This is not of yourself but only in the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
In life you are now set apart to serve. The Hebrew word ‘abad (עבד) can be translated as “to work,” “to serve,” or “to worship.” This is the word that is used to describe the original mission for humankind.
In essence, through baptism, we return to our cosmic calling. In faith, we worship as we serve. All that we are, we are in Christ.
I remember one time when I was young, my father took me to hear a great lecturer on the Shroud of Turin. The gentlemen that was giving the lecture had a Ph.D. in something and came off as very intelligent. It was one of the first times in my young life I ever heard someone speak with this kind of wisdom or understanding. I remember thinking, “maybe someday.” Well perhaps I have arrived, perhaps not. Some people know that the Biblical names we say in English aren’t really accurate. They aren’t the way they would have been pronounced in Hebrew or Greek they are the English versions of the words. For instance, in this lecture the scholar kept saying, “Yeshayahu.” I asked my dad what that meant and He whispered, “Hebrew for Isaiah.” Little did I know this would end up turning into a significant part of my life path.
Biblical Hebrew (or classical Hebrew) was an ancient language that some say emerged in the 10th century B.C (or 1,000 B.C.) and perhaps earlier. Some believe it was the primary language given by God. During the Roman Period Biblical Hebrew “evolved” beyond recognition. The Jewish Diaspora (or spreading of the Jews) changed the pronunciations to be unrecognizable in many ways. Languages got mixed & new dialects were made. Eventually Biblical Hebrew got so minced that it was unrecognizable and basically “died.” But it’s even more complicated, Jeff Benner addresses the issue like this,
“The Hebrew texts of the Bible were originally written with only the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which only represent consonantal sounds. As no vowel sounds were originally included in the text, they had to be memorized. As you can imagine with the Diaspora and passing on of the language orally in through different dialect and slang things became very difficult to know exactly what words were what. Around the 10th Century AD, a group of Jewish scribes called Masorites, created a system of dots and dashes, called nikkudot or vowel pointings and added these to the hebrew text. These vowel pointings served to supply the vowel sounds to the text in order to codify the pronunciation. The Masorites also included notes in the margins of the text. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscript known to exist is the Masoretic text called the Aleppo Codex which was written in 826 A.D. This text is considered the most authoritative Hebrew manuscript and all future editions are based on this text.”
But the problem therein lies that by 826 A.D. most scholars would believe we had already lost the core of what Biblical Hebrew once was. Are you starting to see the issues?
Hebrew experienced a revival in the 19th century – and there was a push to bring back the Hebrew language, what we know was “Modern Hebrew” came as a result.
This was part of the Zionist Movement, or National Revival Movement to create a state/home for Jews and was an instrumental part of dispensationalism. During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary. With the new dictionary, people started using Hebrew again and speaking 1 language. Because of the influence of European languages (remember, the Jewish Diaspora and evolving mentioned above?), Hebrew changed as a language. By the medieval period, we know of three main oral reading traditions: Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian. Numerous medieval biblical manuscripts have survived representing these oral reading traditions with different vocalization sign systems.
(SOURCE: A comprehensive description of Babylonian vocalization is presented by Yisrael Yeivin The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization -Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985).
Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are different. For instance, the basic word for “I” changed, and words from outside languages came into modern Hebrew, essentially, a Biblical Hebrew “speaker” wouldn’t understand a Modern one and vice versa. In this way a someone that knows modern Hebrew often cannot really easily read the Hebrew Bible. They are “that” different. Because of these things and several others, there is a good bit of “acceptable” linguistic variation. Biblical Hebrew has been hard to track for many reasons.
Mark Ward sheds some light into this, “In New Testament times, the disciples were noted as Galileans, probably indeed because of their accents. What was the “right” way back then to pronounce Kiriath Jearim? And was it FIL-uh-steen or fuh-LISS-teen—or something else entirely? Who can know? I’m not saying we can’t know anything about ancient pronunciation of Hebrew and Greek words; I’m saying it cannot serve as the standard for how you pronounce names in the Bible today. Take that impossible pressure off of you.”
We simply “do not know” and because of this, some scholars have gone to great lengths to try to show why one pronunciation or another may be better, but we are so far removed and there are so many complications to this argument that instead of the scholarly community getting particular about all the various possible pronunciations, for the most part, there is a loose grace that comes with the ground. In Hebrew thought, there is never really an absolute “correct” way of seeing something anyway. The ONLY correct “view” is God’s view, and no one has those exact eyes.
So now, you will better understand how TOV specifically gets interesting.
Most people reading this know that Tov is the Biblical Hebrew word that describes God’s handiwork as “good” [tov]. The Hebrew word tov would best be translated as the word “functional” in terms of God’s order (algorithm may be a better modern word to describe what God does here in regard to devotion) in contrast to this word is the Hebrew word “ra”. These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of “good” and “evil”. While “ra” is often translated as evil it is best translated as “dysfunctional” or “chaotic”. In the Bible we see narratives such as good-evil, tov-ra, order-disorder, function-disfunction, peace-chaos and so on and so forth, and they all describe the contrast of everything that becomes rival to the ways of the Lord.
Tov becomes a one word Idiom to describe all things as intended by God with the idea of a journey to being what you were fully designed to be from the eyes of God both in a sense of your person and the community that represents God.
In Ancient or Paleo Hebrew each character makes a picture that has a loose description of its intention. The above from “strongs” will help you understand this ancient Hebraic idea.
You might notice if you look up the word “good” that different sources or commentators handle meanings and even the pronunciation of the word slightly differently. This just goes back to the idea above that we really do not know what the original word exactly sounded like and many different scholars have suggested differences of opinion and research.
Transliteration takes the letters from one language (in this case, Hebrew) and puts them into another while trying to preserve pronunciation as best as possible. This presents challenges when languages like Hebrew have different sounds than English and have changed immensely over time. For example, one of the sounds in Hebrew that’s hard to carry over in English is the kh sound. It appears in words like chesed (steadfast love, lovingkindness) and sounds like phlegm coming out the back of the throat.
You may see the word TOV written by some commentators as “tobe” where as others may suggest “towb” or somethings different. Sometimes this is a variation in vocabulary and tense but most often it isn’t. In Hebrew the V, W, and B English sounds are very close.
____________________
HOW TO PRONOUNCE TOV: So specifically, when we pronounce TOV, scholars can agree on a few things; in Hebrew you emphasize a strong syllable, and in this word, it is at the beginning. T and O are strong and for the most part are pronounced like “TOE” in English. (However, this is complicated because in modern Hebrew this O often can take on an “A” sound. You might be familiar with this when people say, Mozel TAV with a long A sound rather than Mozel TOV with a short O sound.) Then when you get to the end of the word TOV (particularly in Biblical Hebrew), the emphasis almost fades to nothing. You end with a nearly slurred WVB sound in English. Therefore, TOwvb may be the closest thing (transliteration) you would understand in English (but don’t give to much emphasis to any of the “w” “v” or “b” sound, they should softly fade together.) It comes off as a strong “Toe” with a fading wvb sound. All that said, TAV, TOWB, TOBE, TOVE, TOV and likely other ways of saying it, are all “acceptable” especially when spoken in English! As I alluded to above, only God knows.
EXPEDITION 44 