Romans chapter 13

vs 1

Yes, this is as shocking back then as it was now. Remember, the authorities in the time of the early church included emperors who wanted to be worshipped as gods, and who would put Christians in arenas with lions or coat them in wax and set them on fire like candles for fun.

So the idea that God has established Kevin Rudd as the current Prime Minister, or Morris Iemma as the current Premier, whilst shocking to some Christians who believe that left equals Satan, is completely biblical. If it can be true of Nero, it can be true of someone who is pretty much totally benign like Julia Gillard or Barak Obama. Even those fruity leaders like Stalin and, yes, I will drop the H-Bomb again, Hitler, were established and ordained by God.

Does that mean that the extermination of Jews was God's will? Hell no! People are all sinful and do sinful things that they will be judged for, even leaders. This verse is less about how leaders act, and more about how subjects under leaders should act.

vs 2

So when God puts in place rulership, then it is wrong to rebel against it, and God will judge such action. Now, this is an interesting thing to say. The Jews rebelled against the Romans several times (and were killed several times too). They rebelled against their Greek captors too I believe. Paul is clearly showing that such activity is not acceptable.

But how portable to our time is this thinking? We have a democratically elected government for whom we can vote. If we vote against the reigning party, is that rebellion? I would say no - because the government goes to the people asking for legitimacy in our system. If their legitimacy was "I was born of better stock than you" or "I have an army with big guns", though, that still isn't sufficient to rebel against them, apparently.

Of course, if that is true, then that means that no form of political leadership or domination is wrong merely because we don't like it. Certainly none is more biblical than another.

vs 3

This is almost always true. Of course, if "doing wrong" has "being Christian" under its list, then you're in for some trouble.

vs 4

Now this idea stands up on strong biblical principles. Remember all those times God used pretty evil leaders of foreign lands to punish Israel. They weren't godly leaders, not really. So God can do the same with a godless leader of your own country - use him to punish the wicked. So every time a bad person does go to jail, remember that God instituted that authority.

vs 5

Paul sums up his argument so far - submit to authorities because they will cut bits off you, and because God tells you too.

vs 6

Paul (and Jesus) were not against taxes. Paul goes so far to say that taxes are like the giving you give to those who do full time church work - they are a payment that keeps them in their God-given role. It's a novel idea, and I guess it works better now than it did then, where tax is not skimmed by tax collectors and the leaders aren't lining their pockets - usually.

vs 7

This is an interesting verse, then. You can read it two ways. The first way, it means that you should give to people what they say you owe them. A government says you owe it taxes, so as a good citizen you pay. In the same way, leaders say you owe them respect because of their position, and so you are to give it to them.

The other way to read it is that you should give to people who you actually do owe things to. This means that governments still require taxes, because Paul said that they earn it earlier. But respect is only due to those who earn it, not just because people demand it.

I'm not sure which is right. There is probably a mix of the two required.