Replies

Paul not only tells us to obey rulers; he tells us what a ruler is. In 13:4, he says the deakonis (minister of god, ruler generally) is a doer of good to those who do good and a revenger upon those who do evil.

Well, this is a new interpretation not found in the commentaries. I assume that verse 13:6:

Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes. For they are God's servants, always giving attention to this very thing.

Means we are to pay taxes to church leaders? I would suggest further study.

How could someone who tells you to help him kill innocents, or who is a terror unto those who do good (some of the Catholic Poles who hid the innocent and defied authority) be a “ruler” by God’s standard?

I would suggest you review the Old Testament for your answer. King David, who was a man after "God's own heart", had people sawed in two. In one case he lined up an entire town and every third person (man, woman or child) he executed. David even laments that God would not allow him to build His temple because he was a man of blood. The whole book of Habakkuk (three chapters) deals with why God would purposely bring the murdering Chaldeans down upon the Israelites who were not nearly as bad.

God brings judgment down on the heads of nations by using other nations. He raises up the leaders who He so pleases to make known His power. Keep in mind that the end of Hitler meant the formation of Israel.

There were a number of Catholics and Protestants who hid the Jews. There were even some non-believers like Schindler who harbored the Jews from Hitler. What Hitler did was barbaric but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I'll give you a very good biblical example of this principle. Consider the following text:

Exo 1:15 And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah.
Exo 1:16 And he said, When you midwife the Hebrew women, and look on the birth stools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him. But if it is a daughter, then she shall live.
Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved alive the male children.
Exo 1:18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, Why have you done this thing, and have saved the male children alive?
Exo 1:19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. For they are lively, and are delivered before the midwives come in to them.
Exo 1:20 And God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and became very mighty.

The midwives clearly lied to Pharaoh because they did not want to kill the babies. What the midwives did was wrong and a violation of one of the commandments. However, they did it so they wouldn't violate what they (and God) considered a higher commandment, one of murder. As a result of their effort, God "dealt well" with them. It doesn't mean that what they did was right, only that there are degrees of sin that we all must weigh.

As a result of their effort, God "dealt well" with them. It doesn't mean that what they did was right, only that there are degrees of sin that we all must weigh.

You may be shocked but I suspect we are not that far apart; I would characterize this a little differently. Obeying a higher law IS doing the "right thing," and makes what would otherwise APPEAR to be the breaking of a lower standard an act of righteousness. Nathan called David to abject repentence for his wrong doing; Romans 13 is almost always interpreted from the perspective of the citizen or the subjects. It is also a clear direction to leaders as well; John McCarthur makes the dangerous mistake of emphasizing only one-half of the message. It is VERY unlikely this forum itself would exist if the founders of the republic weren't doing the right thing and obeying God's laws over man's.

Are missionaries, for example, doing the wrong thing when they refuse to be silent about the preaching of the gospel--in countries where they are commanded to hold their tongues?

One more point. Where I respect your reasoning, at least, is that your understanding of Scripture is complete enough to know that the law was made for man, not man for the law. You have a rationale for concluding that, yes, at some point it is appropriate to disobey a leader when that leader calls you to be complicit in an act of objective evil. My reading of McArthur is that he stresses obedience to a degree that is very dangerous. What else can you conclude when he includes depraved pronouncements like "obey Hitler, obey Stalin."

If the early Christians had obeyed Nero, the Gospel itself would not have been preached.