Has anyone ever been convicted that state adultery laws --though obviously not aligning with the concept of biblical adultery-- would make plural marriage a violation of Romans 13:1 in those particular states with such laws on the books? Technically in NYS to even have sexual intercourse with someone other than your legal spouse is considered the crime of adultery.
I feel like my parade just got potentially rained on. Even though there is no common law marriage in NYS so bigamy wouldn't be an issue....this would technically be the only civil law being broken by a man here taling multiple wives wothout civilly marrying more than one.
Dang. Might have to move to PA where there's no common law marriage and no adultery law....
I think you may be reading this verse wrong brother.
Just do a thought experiment. Imagine you are now in a country which is hostile to the faith; bibles are illegal.
Do you volunteer your bible up to the powers that be so they may burn it?
I looked at the Greek here and the language is not conclusively that of gov't authorities. This is one way to interpret it, but it may also mean spiritual authorities/powers.
It may be that Paul has in mind the Jewish legal system; wherever Jews were they were/are bound to participate in the religious judges set over them. This system is known as the
bēt dīn, house of judgement. I was going to list the Greek verse and all the meanings of the key words, not one of which means only a secular government.
It may also be that this very verse is actually meant for the congregation in Rome for the coming persecution as a special testimony.
There seems to be a certain parallel here to Keifah's advice in 1 Peter 2:13. It may be Paul is even hoping to stave off any extra persecution by the hands of the Romans by making the community in Rome a shining example to the tenacious and fickle Roman government.
Even as Yeshua demonstrated, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" not giving the nod to the polytheists ruling over Israel, but not giving them a reason to persecute us or maybe it's instructing us concerning civil disobedience. When the punishment comes submit and take it.
Maybe there is a parallel in David's refusal to touch Saul's life because he was "G-d's anointed"; while at the same time then righteous David certainly did not obey the government, King Saul. Had he obeyed he would have died.
In short no scripture stands alone right? We must consider the time and audience and culture to whom it was written. If the Colonists interpreted this verse in such a binding way as you are presenting it, the United States would still be part of Great Britain.
We must read the Pauline letters very carefully; yes they are in the canon but they are also other peoples' mail. they were very pertinent to precise situations some of which are quite difficult for us to exegete today. Some of Paul's letters are entirely ironic rebuke in their take and vastly misunderstood.
In the case of the verses following the one you listed, if we take it point blank at it's face value devoid of cultural context, language usage, and any immediacy for the recipients of the letter at that time, then we will look foolish when we read vs. 3:
"
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 13:3).
Most humans of ALL time have been subject to evil, and despicable rulers so clearly there must be more than a plain reading of this text to comprehend what Paul is teaching here. Think Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc.
