Yes, he can do what he wants. But he only does what is lawful, all the time. Shall his servants do otherwise? It would be a conundrum indeed if he commands his servants to do unlawful things.
I cannot see any way to maintain utter pacifism as an ethic based purely on Romans 13, unless that pacifism is restricted completely to the individual Christian submitting himself to injustice without retaliation, in a case where he knows that only he will be affected. Christ makes his servants free to do that. But he does not make his servants free to disobey when the orphan, widow, or sojourner are so treated. Standing by and claiming pacifism when the magistrate robs the widow, extorts the orphan, or denies the sojourner is no option and Romans 13 cannot be interpreted to say this.
And I think this is the exact ethic Christ used when he cleansed the temple. Those moneychangers weren't hurting him at all. The pecuniary extortion didn't hurt him. The dishonor didn't hurt him.
But it hurt his flock, especially the poor, who don't have much margin to operate on. This exact concern for the poor is shown when he comments on the widow's mite. The pharisees could have been helping that widow, he observes, yet they were happy to take advantage of her great faith and let her put her last penny in the box.
Jesus always gets mad and acts for the sake of others. So should we.
Sure, we can turn the other cheek if an authority slaps us.
But when an authority makes a law saying "return any escaped slave you find to his master", we say "it is not lawful for you to say this; God has commanded otherwise; rescind your order, or step down and we will replace you with one who will; and if you resist us, we will get the whip."
I don't think Christ going into the temple works as an example since he is after all the King of Kings
Yes, he can do what he wants. But he only does what is lawful, all the time. Shall his servants do otherwise? It would be a conundrum indeed if he commands his servants to do unlawful things.
I cannot see any way to maintain utter pacifism as an ethic based purely on Romans 13, unless that pacifism is restricted completely to the individual Christian submitting himself to injustice without retaliation, in a case where he knows that only he will be affected. Christ makes his servants free to do that. But he does not make his servants free to disobey when the orphan, widow, or sojourner are so treated. Standing by and claiming pacifism when the magistrate robs the widow, extorts the orphan, or denies the sojourner is no option and Romans 13 cannot be interpreted to say this.
And I think this is the exact ethic Christ used when he cleansed the temple. Those moneychangers weren't hurting him at all. The pecuniary extortion didn't hurt him. The dishonor didn't hurt him.
But it hurt his flock, especially the poor, who don't have much margin to operate on. This exact concern for the poor is shown when he comments on the widow's mite. The pharisees could have been helping that widow, he observes, yet they were happy to take advantage of her great faith and let her put her last penny in the box.
Jesus always gets mad and acts for the sake of others. So should we.
Sure, we can turn the other cheek if an authority slaps us.
But when an authority makes a law saying "return any escaped slave you find to his master", we say "it is not lawful for you to say this; God has commanded otherwise; rescind your order, or step down and we will replace you with one who will; and if you resist us, we will get the whip."