Did Jesus have any temporal authority over the administration of the temple yard--where the money changers worked? If I recall properly, our Lord Jesus told them they had made "His Father's house" a den of thieves. Since the house belong to His Father, I would say He had authority over it.
You can't "obey" authority without defining it--as Romans 13 clearly does. Unless you want to call God a liar (do you?)
And how is it defined? I believe I have stated many times now that the commentators all agree that Paul is talking about obeying government bodies. There is no need to say that God is a liar. He is rather clear on the subject.
someone who is not a "rewarder of those who do good" is not in authority.
I would call to your attention Pilate who was given the authority to execute our Lord Jesus by God. At least that is what our Lord stated.
If I recall properly, our Lord Jesus told them they had made "His Father's house" a den of thieves. Since the house belong to His Father, I would say He had authority over it.
He had, and has, authority over everything, but He submitted to earthly authority, else why would He allow Himself to be arrested and crucified? But according to your logic, this submission to earthly authority causes "sin" when the subject defies authority wielded unrighteously. Since we know the Lord is without sin, we know, by His example, that defiance of earthly authority, and even corrective enforcement (the money changers' tables), is sometimes within the province of the subject, and that such actions are without sin--that is, unless you are calling Christ a sinner.
And how is it [rulership] defined? I believe I have stated many times now that the commentators all agree that Paul is talking about obeying government bodies. There is no need to say that God is a liar. He is rather clear on the subject.
Yes, He is, but you don't seem to understand His plain words. He defines rulers in this verse:
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:
Rulers "are not" by definition a "terror to good works." If a ruler is a terror unto those who do good he is not a Ruler. You don't need a "commentator" on that, unless you want to be willfully blind.