20 votes

Biblical Submission to Government

Romans 13:1-2 is often greatly misunderstood. Many Christians interpret this passage of Scripture to mean that we should offer unquestioning obedience to government, even if it's an evil and corrupt government. This is simply not true. Most people fail to consider verse 3, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Clearly, God is speaking about GOOD government in Romans 13... because they are a terror to evil works, i.e., crimes. But what happens when our government becomes a terror in itself, committing blatant heinous crimes before our very eyes? The Word of God commands us to submit to HONEST government. So why do so many pastors today attempt to lead their congregations into unquestioning loyalty and submission to criminals in The White House? Do you think this pleases the Lord?

This is so tragic! Doesn't anyone do their homework? No, and that's the big problem! Most Christian leaders are no better than the average ignorant U.S. citizen or church member who is brainwashed by the television. In fact, many people are being brainwashed by ignorant preachers. I say this respectfully. Why doesn't anyone listen to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney? She is one of our elected officials. She stated in February of 2006 that a CRIMINAL SYNDICATE is controlling America! Here's a video of Congresswoman McKinney grilling Donald Rumsfeld over DynCorp's sex slaves, missing trillions of dollars from the Defense Department's budget, and the unannounced government war games on the morning of 911. Congressman Ron Paul has repeatedly warned the American people about the dangers of the Patriot Act, and the Coming Police State! Yet, Most of America's preachers, evangelists, and pastors could care less. Why won't they search the matter for the truth? Are they afraid of losing financial support? Are they afraid they might find the truth? Or is it that they just don't care? There is NO excuse! What kind of preacher can ignore all the corruption and evils in our government, and only preach sugar-coated sermons to his congregation? I'll tell you, a blinded or careless preacher! It is ludicrous for a pastor to maintain the attitude that Satan must run his course, while not even lifting a finger to do something about it. Look, God doesn't expect us to do more than He has enabled us to do; but, we can all share the truth with others. Ephesians 5:11 commands us to EXPOSE the works of darkness.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Herod Agrippa:

Was an Idumaean, which was Edomite. This means that Herod Agrippa was not a Jew but an Edomite. The Edomites were descendants of Esau.

The main gods of the Edomites were the fertility gods of the region. According to Assyrian secular records, it is known that Edom had one national god named “Qos,” however they were hardly monotheistic in that they had other gods. There was also evidence of Baal worship. Normally wherever Baal was Astarte was also found. Astarte was a deity of fertility. Astarte was known as Aphrodite to the Greeks. Astarate was also known as “Ishtar” which was the goddess of fertility.

Agrippa also grew up in Rome, in the courts of Tiberius. It was his good friend Caligula that gave Agrippa his position, once Caligula became Caesar.

So basically, He was an Edomite, that spent most of his life in Rome. I'm going to have to dig deeper, but it's probably a safe guess to say, yeah....he probably celebrated Easter.

But like I said, either way in the common English of the time "Easter" could refer to either, so no matter what our opinion on which is better, it can't be considered a "mistranslation".

Anyway cheerio, God bless and adieu.
This will be my last post. (Like I said, don't have the time)

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison



"Christian scholars argue that the biblical account makes sense given that Agrippa had been raised with a strong Jewish identity." (Wikipedia) for what it's worth.

"In Judaea, Agrippa zealously pursued orthodox Jewish policies, earning the friendship of the Jews and vigorously repressing the Jewish Christians." (Encyclopedia Britannica) for what it's worth.

"Although extravagant in his youth, he was careful to observe Jewish customs as king, and was able to perform several services for which he is recognized by Jewish sources with gratitude." (New World Encyclopedia) for what it's worth.

The fact that He was persecuting the followers of Messiah shows his close connection to the Jewish establishment. There is no reason he would wait for Easter but there is every reason he would wait till the end of the Passover feast.

The days of Unleavened

by that time were considered part of the "Passover festival" as it is today. The Greek reads "Pasach" (Passover)" and of that there is on doubt.

So why would it be written as Pasach in Greek but translated to Easter by the heavily indoctrinated King James translators. Passover and Easter are not interchangeable words or events so there is/was no good reason for the Greeks to put Pasach if it wasn't originally written Pasach. If it were Easter they surely would have kept it that way.

If the Greek translators had put Easter there then perhaps this guys argument would hold up but it was the King James translators who changed it to Easter. Even with his attempt at a contextual argument it appears that Easter still does not belong in Scripture.

By the way even the subsequent King James translations corrected it to Passover. Even so the King James has just as many mistakes as any other version and should not be treated as the infallible word of Elohim like this guy seems to be doing.

Tyndale created the word "passover"

So it doesn't "belong" there either. And he didn't use it in that passage as well.
And yes they were very much interchangeable.
Easter was the common English word at the time for both events.

"Passover" was always the first day, followed immediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
So given the context that Peter was arrested AFTER passover, Herod was in all likely hood waiting till Easter/Isthar, so a revision is not necessary.

Either way, it really isn't much of an issue. Both adequately give a representation of the time it took place. And even if you do believe the passage is talking about the actual "passover", Easter/ester is not technically a mistranslation in that regard either, since it was the common English term of the time.

I believe it was indeed referring to the pagan festival of Ishtar. And leaving it saying "Easter" is preferable.


"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

By the time of Yahshua

The Jews were keeping the feasts about like they are today. They call the entire week Passover.

You say it should be Easter but the FACT is that the word the King James translators translated was Pasach.

Act 12:4 AndG2532 when he(G3739) had apprehendedG4084 him, he putG5087 him inG1519 prison,G5438 and deliveredG3860 him to fourG5064 quaternionsG5069 of soldiersG4757 to keepG5442 him;G846 intendingG1014 afterG3326 "EasterG3957" to bring him forthG321 G846 to theG3588 people.G2992

Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it)

As you see the word is pascha which is directly from Pesach and in no way sounds like or is associated with Easter. And again if it was Easter then why didn't the pagan Greeks just put Easter? Because it is supposed to be Pesach/Pascha/Passover.

Also it doesn't matter if you call it Pesach or Passover because they mean the same thing. Easter doesn't and never did. Even today Easter with its supposed dual meaning doesn't represent Passover.

No it's not the correct

No it's not the correct translation. It's passover. Why would anyone call it after a Babylonian pagan Ishtar, a god of fertility? The commercials of bunnies and eggs on the idiot box for the uninformed is not all there to sell those goods, should say a ton to those informed.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

Did you watch?

....The passover had already happened. Herod wanted to wait till his pagan holiday of Easter

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Great comment! On the matter

Great comment! On the matter of Christ true name you may want to look into what's called Paleo Hebrew and only that for a while. Forget (Babylonian) Aramaic and all the other languages. I used to use "Yahshua" too until recently, this includes "Yahweh" if you use that name for the Almighty. May want to be cautious on YHWH/YHVH to me says a lot to me (witchcraft) as I seen it spelled on tarot cards.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

Believe me

there are those who use His Name for evil. But Yod Hey Waw Hey ARE the letters that make up His Name regardless of how people use, or misuse it. We know what happens to those who misuse His Name or those who treat His Name like it's nothing.

Again look at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 which use the exact same Name that is translated Jesus throughout the New Testament yet we know that name is Yahshua. This to me is absolute proof of His true Name. It also harmonizes with Moses changing Hoshua's name to Yahshua before he lead Israel into the promise.

The point is that, regardless of language, we know that the son of Nun was named Yahshua and we know that they erroneously translated his name to Jesus in those two verses and that is the same name that is translated to Jesus throughout the New Testament.

Just for curiosities sake what name do you call on if you no longer call on Yahshua? Do you have any specific references? Thanks.

Denise B's picture


Comment deleted due to my error. I actually have been reading the 1599 Geneva Bible, which does use the term Passover, while you are correct, the KJV does use the word Easter....that is an interesting point to ponder...

All English translations prior and up to KJV used Easter.

Some were later revised to "Passover" a word created by Tyndale.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

You are still wrong

The Greek word is Pascah which comes directly from Pasach which is Passover. Your origins of the word Passover argument is not relevant since Passover means Pesach. Easter does not.

Names are supposed to be transliterated is true if that is what you are trying to say. But if I say Moses you know that I am speaking of Mosheh, if I say Passover you know I am talking about Pasach , when I say Easter you know I am talking about Ishtar.

The King James bible is not the infallible word of GOD and that seems to be the argument that you and the guy in your video are trying to suggest.


I surely know there are some who believe the KJV itself to be inspired.
I however, believe in the perfect inerrant word of the original manuscripts.
I do believe however that the KJV is/was one the most accurate translations many English speakers had access to; and to this day is a far-cry better than "modern translations".

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Denise B's picture

You are also correct about the Savior's name,

Jesus is not a correct translation, and it is something that I have been struggling with because I do not know why they would change the translation, which technically translates to "hail Zeus", or something similar. His true name is very important, the Lord puts a lot of emphasis on names, and would certainly do so with His own Son's name. I know that it was changed about 400 years ago and I have been studying the matter to try to get to the bottom of it. I don't know yet where I stand on the rest of your statement, but I do know that having an accurate translation is imperative.

While your at it should also

While your at it should also take a look at the word "ruddy" used in the KJV. In a 1535 bible that word for David wasn't used instead it was being well colored. Also, the connection with the Masoretes injection to the bible to promote the color of Esau and adding terms such as Jehovah. May want to look also the skin tone for Christ and all of the Children of Israel. The real ones.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

Denise B's picture

I will, thank you. Jehovah

is also an incorrect translation of the Almighty's true name, this I do know. I always think that if I was the Devil, the first thing I would want to do is try to corrupt or change the Lord's Word and have even considered studying Hebrew and Greek to assist in studying the original texts. The New Testament tells us to diligently contend for the faith and we must all as Christians endeavor to do just that.

As to the earlier poster's other comments; however, I do not think that time exists as we know it once this life ends, so that is a matter that also may need more thought and study. There is a specific reference, possibly in Kings (I need to look it up again), but Saul actually visits a medium and has the spirit of Samuel brought to him, much to Samuel's anger and dismay. This passage also can not be ignored and certainly suggests that our spirit does leave our body upon death and continues to exist, I would surmise in Heaven if that is your destination until Jesus returns, at which time it would be reunited with your perfect body. Thanks for your comments, my studies of God's word is a never ending process.

You may wanna look into

You may wanna look into calling yourself Christian while your at it. I use to use that label myself but it's really a derogatory term. None of the apostles and disciples ever used it for themselves but it was called at them. It's better to reserve what Christ said to be if following the Commandments, not what man has called it to be by their own understanding and exaltation.

About Saul and Samuel and the other poster posting the scriptures do not lie. Read 1 Samuel 28. It was none other than God himself that allowed it for how else would Saul prophecy to Saul what would happen to him in verse 19 if it not from God?

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

SteveMT's picture

That was nailed, no pun intended.

Like I said below:
1. There is no such thing as a "good government."
2. There is no such thing as an "honest government."

These terms are oxymorons. The Almighty knew that and some here know that, and the author of this post should know that also. There is no way to interpret Romans 13 correctly. It was written by TPTB to keep man under the boot of tyranny. The Bible says these words to keep the kiddies in line by paying their taxes and by dutifully fighting and dying in wars. It's a form a fascism, combining government with an industry, which in this case the Church was equivalent in size to GM at its height.

No. Romans 13:1 does NOT say

No. Romans 13:1 does NOT say to obey the government, it says to disobey the government (if need be). The phrase rendered "governing authorities" is a (I suspect deliberate) mistranslation. Verse 1 should read something like

"Every person is to be in subjection to higher authorities. Because there is no authority if not from God, and those which exist are established by God."

"Higher authorities"? Higher than what? Well, since "there is no authority if not from God" (notice the word IF; not "that," but "if")well you can figure it out. Like hells_unicorn pointed out, context is key.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

SteveMT's picture

That is the problem with written words.

God knows that and I know that, but you don't know that. The fact that we (some of us here) are arguing about these words means that they cannot be from the Almighty. God does not want to confuse. That would not be the intention of a 100% good God. God wants crystal clear thinking, not divisive nuisances concerning word definitions. He would not set one person against another by words written hundreds/thousands of years ago with differences in translations, the meanings of words, and the supposed misinterpreting of passages.

Would God have spoken in written words over here to these people and more, but different, written words over there to those people with both claiming that their words are from the same God? You would say only one can be right and that you possess the correct Word of God. The other would say the opposite that he is right. Then both of you would have a war about this disagreement. For example, the Jews and the Muslims fit this description. I say that both are wrong and neither has the Word of God. Just looking at the fact they are arguing about it means that neither is correct. Conclusion, God does not speak in written words.

I think you misunderstood me.

I think you misunderstood me. Let's imagine that my reply to you were

Considering your first sentence on that post is "I hate God; go fuck yourself" I'd say we're done.

Then someone else comes along and says

The first sentence does not say that at all Go read it! In fact, he didn't say that anywhere in the reply nor did he imply it either. You should read it more carefully.

Now, suppose a fourth party happens on and says

The fact that we (some of us here) are arguing about these words means that they cannot be from SteveMT.

How absurd that would be. Sometimes words are not "divisive nuisances" but plain words with simple meanings, but no matter, anyone can choose to ignore them or lie about them. Also remember that The Constitution says "All marbles are created squarely," so I'm right. Just because I can misquote The Constitution, doesn't prove that we can't know what words are in it. Just because different people quote the Bible differently doesn't prove they are both wrong. By your reasoning if I go around misquoting you, people will have to conclude that you never said anything at all.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Ugh, the thick-headedness.

If Romans 13 is the chapter that destroys everything else in the bible, including such noted passages as 1 Tim. 1:8 ("We know that the law is good IF A MAN USE IT LAWFULLY"), Acts 5:29 ("We ought to obey God RATHER THAN MEN"), and my personal favorite Matt 5:9 ("Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"), why wasn't it published as its own book, rather than part of a collection of letters and accounts, formulating a complete canon? The answer is that Romans 13 has no binding effect apart from it's intended meaning, which was to admonish converts from using the excuse of being ruled by pagans to sidestep the moral laws of the 10 commandments (Romans 13:9 actually quotes the 2nd table of the OT law verbatim and sums it up by quoting the 2nd part of the Golden Rule, itself a summation of the 2nd table of the law).

Furthermore, government is to be distinguished from despotism, otherwise any governing authority, including your own parents would have to be dismissed as being tyrannical. Would you call your own parents a tyrant for having birthed you and provided you with all that you needed to survive?

The fact that we are living under a despotic government that doesn't obey its own laws and that this has become increasingly common in other nations does not speak to the absolute non-existence of good and honest government. Saying such would imply that there are also no good people, hence there is no morality, hence you're a nihilist, hence nobody should listen to anything you say for fear of losing IQ points in the process.

Oh, and try not to confuse Roman Catholicism (which not only was Fascistic but basically financed the whole concept in its early 20th century infancy) with the whole scope of Christianity. It makes you sound silly to people who know better, though your lack of reading comprehension regarding one of the most widely cited chapters in the bible already accomplished that.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Try not to confuse Roman Catholicism with the whole scope

of Christianity??

Every Christian on the planet obeys the catholic empire. They use their calendar. They celebrate their holy days. They tell the same stories!

There never was a split from the catholic empire. Protestantism and all the other little sisters was a well played out illusion to divide and conquer but keep the money flowing to Rome.

It has worked extremely well :).

I gotta agree with you.

I gotta agree with you.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

SteveMT's picture

There ARE no good people in this world.

It's easy to be "bad." It's much harder to be "good." No one is good.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God

Notice this verse comes from Romans,...again. This verse in Chapter 3 is the setup for obeying the government, which comes later in Chapter 13. These government-supporter writers are pretty smart. They make us feel bad by telling us all are unworthy of redemption, then they hit us with support your government.

The next question

The next question you should of asked was: What is sin?

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

SteveMT's picture

Believing that Romans 13 could be from the Almighty.

I posted this comment earlier today in the devil's greatest trick thread.

The biggest lie is attributing anything evil to the Almighty.
Submitted by SteveMT on Tue, 12/17/2013 - 13:18. Permalink

Even worse are the apologists who say that this evil was justified and ordained by God. According to the Bible, the biggest abortionist the world has ever known is Almighty God? Just writing that statement is anathema to me. With infanticides, genocides, and homicides, the Almighty also has no equal. The creator of the universe ordering the slaughter of unborn babies and infants in addition to everyone else should not even be considered as coming from God. The devil yes, but not the Almighty. The spin doctors and inerrant Word of God believers of the Bible cannot put a happy face on these crimes against humanity. God is good, not 50%, or 70%, or 99% good. He is 100% good. The killing of a baby or an unborn baby is not good, period. Anyone who attempts to justify the murder of these innocents is from the devil. The lie is that people have been brainwashed into accepting this violence, which has never been seen before or after, as being from God. These killings were not ordered by God. They were ordered by people who used the name of God to make the killing acceptable for the soldiers, who thought that they were doing God's work when in reality they were told a lie and were only carrying-out the nefarious orders of the men in power, not God.

If anyone was a third party or neutral observer during the time that these mass murders were supposed to have occurred, no one would attribute these killings to God. They would say without hesitation that this wholesale bloodshed was from the devil. It would be called pure evil perpetrated by a bunch of madmen.

Someone is judged by what they do. If a fine upstanding citizen, who on the surface was beyond reproach was exposed to be a mass murderer of children, he would be judged by these heinous crimes, not all of the good things that he did before. The crimes stand irrespective of who committed them, whether God or a man.

Enter the apologists who say that I am making a "human argument." This infuriates me. This IS a human argument. Everything is a human argument if made by a human. What this is is a "logical argument." God is essentially saying, do as I say, not as I do. God can kill anyone that he wants, we all certainly deserve it. However, he would have done this thing Himself and have not involved others. When orders are issued, especially supposedly celestial orders from God, and these orders flow through intermediates, people should know immediately that these orders could not have come from the Almighty. Those orders would be called hearsay. These people who accepted these orders were used by the devil to kill innocents, and any apologists for this evil are also from the devil, IMO.

I do not care what any man

Psalms 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

Job 41:11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

I do not care what any man says. If you don't want to listen to God and keep his commandments the choice is yours. While also stop continuing to talk about it in posts like this and elsewhere online and if you hold onto integrity you'll live your life till your last breath with the choice you made. But it doesn't change the outcome whether you believe in God or not. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

There is no way to interpret Romans 13 correctly.

Woohoo! You drove that nail to its final resting place. Christians are so naïve to the fact that the dirty scumbags in charge now were fully in charge back then. They created the greatest illusion known to mankind, at least in our age, that could be created. Billions and billions of money have been stolen from people, on a fairytale.

The "holy" roman empire could not be an empire without a killing machine. They are a wound to humanity and will continue to be until people who THINK they are awake, actually wake the fuck up, for real.

While I agreed with you in

While I agreed with you in the above post this one your out of it. They really got believing that contrived story too? They got you believing it's a fairytale when it's not. They got you too and you do not even know it.

The Catholic cult is a continuation of Babylon and it's still here to this day. Zionism is part of it too. Many simply do not even realize we are in the 4th beast of Babylon that bears the Eagle symbol told in 2 Esdras. Just because you assume that harlot and the masoretes are using scripture doesn't diminish it's authenticity of history and hide who the real Children of Israel are. Many of them do not fear God, they are fools.

For Liberty! http://youtu.be/GR4WYqabTxU
What If? http://youtu.be/FqAF-Alc7CM
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY