Romans 13:1
Thoughts which are the result of 3 months of daily reading in the books of prophesy:
It is interesting to me that it is such an unacceptable supposition to imply that God was fully in control of and gave the authority to modern day oppressors such as Hitler, Stalin, or Sadaam. When we interpret verses like Romans 13:1 it is inevitably brought up that surely a good and loving God could not have put evil men such as these into power and expected us to respect him. I believe it is a result of this strain of thought that leads many respected bible teachers to teach that the correct interpretation of this verse is not that God appoints individual athorities and leaders but the positions of leadership which are then filled by man's free will and choice. Although I am not discounting the possibility that this could be the correct interpretation I believe we get a very different picture when we look at his establishment of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Mede/Persian empires and I do not see why if it was not unacceptable for him to establish evil rulers as a part of his divine will then it is unacceptable to entertain the idea he could do so still today. We have no problem accepting that he was fully behind the establishment of kings Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, or Darius the Mede - or at least we should not as it is clearly spelled out for us throughout prophetic and historic books that he did so fully of his own will and for his own purposes. These kings and the empires the represented, however, were amoung the most ruthless, destructive, and bent on personal conquest the world has ever known - yet God used them to fulfill his purposes. I often don't think of it as I read but realize that the Babylonian empire took over and exiled not only Israel but also all of Egypt and all the surrounding areas from the North where Babylon is all the way into the South. If we allow that this was a part of God's will why will we not allow that Hilter could have been? Further more, though I do not like to dwell long on the thought as it is difficult, it is also clear that Satan has no authority or power on this earth but that which God has given him and all that he does is allowed by God.
Does this negate the idea of our God as loving, gracious, and merciful? By no means! It only shows just how much his ways are not our ways and his understanding of the greater scheme of things is infinately above our own.
Post Script: if I'm posting a lot lately it's probably becuase I have many much more important things I need to be writing but do not want to and therefore am finding ways to feel like I have accomplished something in the way of writing while not filling out my dreaded application essays for Wheaton. Bleck. Oh yeah, and I'm sorry if there were any inacuracies in that, I really didn't research it - it was just from what I could remember from what I've been reading and thinking about lately.
It is interesting to me that it is such an unacceptable supposition to imply that God was fully in control of and gave the authority to modern day oppressors such as Hitler, Stalin, or Sadaam. When we interpret verses like Romans 13:1 it is inevitably brought up that surely a good and loving God could not have put evil men such as these into power and expected us to respect him. I believe it is a result of this strain of thought that leads many respected bible teachers to teach that the correct interpretation of this verse is not that God appoints individual athorities and leaders but the positions of leadership which are then filled by man's free will and choice. Although I am not discounting the possibility that this could be the correct interpretation I believe we get a very different picture when we look at his establishment of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Mede/Persian empires and I do not see why if it was not unacceptable for him to establish evil rulers as a part of his divine will then it is unacceptable to entertain the idea he could do so still today. We have no problem accepting that he was fully behind the establishment of kings Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, or Darius the Mede - or at least we should not as it is clearly spelled out for us throughout prophetic and historic books that he did so fully of his own will and for his own purposes. These kings and the empires the represented, however, were amoung the most ruthless, destructive, and bent on personal conquest the world has ever known - yet God used them to fulfill his purposes. I often don't think of it as I read but realize that the Babylonian empire took over and exiled not only Israel but also all of Egypt and all the surrounding areas from the North where Babylon is all the way into the South. If we allow that this was a part of God's will why will we not allow that Hilter could have been? Further more, though I do not like to dwell long on the thought as it is difficult, it is also clear that Satan has no authority or power on this earth but that which God has given him and all that he does is allowed by God.
Does this negate the idea of our God as loving, gracious, and merciful? By no means! It only shows just how much his ways are not our ways and his understanding of the greater scheme of things is infinately above our own.
Post Script: if I'm posting a lot lately it's probably becuase I have many much more important things I need to be writing but do not want to and therefore am finding ways to feel like I have accomplished something in the way of writing while not filling out my dreaded application essays for Wheaton. Bleck. Oh yeah, and I'm sorry if there were any inacuracies in that, I really didn't research it - it was just from what I could remember from what I've been reading and thinking about lately.
posted by Pamela Joy at 10:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home