Romans 13 and Obeying the Beast
The beast is the government beast of Revelation 13: 1-10. In scripture
this beast government is part of the first beast of Revelation 13: 1-2, which is
influenced by the lion, bear, leopard and fourth dreadful and terrible kingdoms in Daniel
7. This part of the beast does not necessarily include Revelation 13: 3, the head
of the beast, or one part of it, the little horn of Daniel 7: 8, whose deadly wound was healed.
James Lloyd of Christian Media Network in one of his Internet radio broadcasts of May 3rd to the
5th of 2011 briefly mentioned the mark of the beast, which is in Revelation 13: 16-17. This
text says the second beast – which is the false prophet and the church in apostasy – causes
“all” to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads, and everyone must have this
mark of the beast, the name of the beast and the number of his name (Revelation 13: 18)
to be allowed to buy and sell. Of course, the first beast is made up of more than one head.
The mark of the beast can be said to be an indicator that one belongs to the part of the first
beast of Revelation 13: 1-2, the government.
Lloyd said that if we have debt, and a Social Security number we have the mark of the beast. The
implication here is that having debt to the big bankers, who are a vital part of the beast, having a Social
Security number, a driver’s license, a marriage license and a birth certificate means “our papers are in order”
as the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet police demanded, and that we belong to the beast. This more lioteral
interpretation of the mark of the beast is in line with verse 17, that we must have the mark of the beast to be allowed to buy and sell. Under the financial beast part of the government beast we are required to buy and
sell with their money, which is fiat money. The lifeline of the beast is fiat money and the beast system runs on
usury, which is charging interest on loans of fiat money. The Bible forbids the practice of usury in many places, such as Exodus 22: 15. Revelation 18: 11-22 is talking about a part of the Babylon of prophecy which is the economic and
money system of the beast, and mentions more than once the emporoi, the world traders. The big bankers of the beast system are at the top of the ruling elite and they create fiat money out of nothing, loan it to the people, and charge them high rates of interest. If the people do not pay all that the big bankers claim are owned to them by the debts they put upon almost everyone, then the bankers send the collection agencies and the lawyers after the debtors
and may take their bank accounts, possessions and homes.
There can be another somewhat more metaphoric interpretation of the mark of the beast, which says the mark indicates that church Christians have given themselves to the second beast, the False Prophet, the church in apostasy. The mark therefore indicates they belong to the False Prophet and the church in false doctrines. But this interpretation should not replace the more literal one involving debt, etc because there is a truth in this interpretation.
The government beast therefore includes the financial elite, the big bankers of Europe and the U.S. And – people are already obeying this government-financial beast when they have debt, a Social Security number, a driver’s license, a marriage license, a birth certificate, etc.
A Christian can repent to God of having given himself to the beast, and try to come out of the system as much as possible, though if one’s debt is big its not possible to get rid of it soon, and operating without a driver’s license or Social Security number would be very difficult in America and in the world now. But God looks on the heart and if one’s heart is to come out of the beast, then that is repentance.
>Many American 501C(3) churches and preachers were deceived into
> supporting the Bush regime, and the present federal government which
> fails most of the time to act in the interests of the common people,
> including most church members. Now most still support the Obama regine.
Are they not moving toward the attitude
> of the majority of German Protestants during the Nazi era? Part of
> this attitude says that Christians should support and obey their
> government, no matter how wicked it may be in the view of some.
A majority of Protestant – Lutheran and Reformed – churches in Nazi
> Germany supported Hitler, just as many “conservative” churches in the
> U.S. supported the Bush regime.
>One of the main leaders of a small network of remnant German
> Christians who opposed Hitler was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran.
> Bonhoeffer and his brethren called their opposition the Confessing
> Church in Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer was hung in 1945 by the Nazis for
> his testimony to Christ and for his courage, they say as the sound of
American artillery could be heard in the distance to the east.
> This majority of German Lutherans and Calvinists who supported Hitler
> and the Nazi government seemed to have forgotten that first the German
> Lutherans, and later the European and English Calvinists in the
> sixteenth century formulated a rationale to justify Christian
> opposition to the tyranny of government. And/or, the German pastors
> who knew of this Protestant history thought it better to ignore it and
> go along with Hitler.
> Blind obedience to bad government, one that oppresses and threatens
> many of its citizens or kills innocent people in foreign lands is not
> the Protestant heritage.
>As early as 1531 Martin Luther himself in his Warning to the Dear
> German People said that if the Catholic political leaders made war
> upon the Protestants, they were the real rebels, no longer lawful
> magistrates, and nothing but “assassins and traitors.”
> Lutheran Martin Bucer at about this time wrote that “…if a superior
> ruler falls into ungodly or tyrannical rule or causes injury to his
> subjects, the inferior rulers…must attempt to remove him by force.
> (The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol Two, Quentin
> Skinner, 1978, p.206).”
> Did not the FBI at Waco on April 19, 1993, acting as
> the federal government, and hence, in the capacity of the ruler, kill
> by burning and shooting a number of its “subjects, according to the film Rules of Engagement (1997) by William Gazecki? Then in 1999 Michael McNulty released Waco: A New Revelation, about the killng of the Branch Davidians which had been attributed by the media to their mass suicide.
Did not the
> “ruler,” that is, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, shoot and kill Vicki Weaver
> from a distance away in August of 1992 when Daddy Bush was president?
> Earlier U.S. Marshals shot and killed fourteen year old Sammy Weaver
> in the back, and killed his dog Striker.
Swiss Calvinist Pierre Viret (1511-1571) had said in his Remonstrances
> (1550) that inferior magistrates are powers ordained by God with a
> duty to protect the people against supreme rulers when the supreme
> rulers fall into ungodliness or tyranny.
“Inferior magistrates” would be state governors, state legislatures,
> and county and city governments. Yet the Viret idea that lower level
> government should protect the people against tyranny by the highest
> level rulers is not made explicit in the U.S. Constitution. The 1787
> Constitution, according to historian Gordon Wood in The Creation of
> the American Republic (1969), was not fully based upon the English
> republican ideology of opposition between the people’s freedom and the
> power of the government. The Constitution of 1787 was, Wood, said,
> “…intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the
> democratic tendencies of the period.”
John Knox (1505-1572), a Scottish Calvinist, and Christopher Goodman
> (1520-1603), apparently an Englishman, came up with the doctrine that
> it is the duty of each citizen and of the “whole multitude” to
> maintain and defend the moral laws of God against their own rulers and
> lesser magistrates (Skinner, 1978, p.237).
At this time, however, Christians are not called to make physical war against an evil government.
The Christian Remnant should, however, put on the full armor of God of Ephesians
6: 11-18 and do spiritual battle against the evil beast government and against the
fallen angels who inspire the beast, the kosmokratoras, that Paul mentions. We have to put on
the truth, righteousness (Christ’s righteousness and mind), the gospel, the shield of faith,
the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The sword
of the Spirit is an offensive weapon, spiritually, which we use to take new territory
from the beast, though at this point in time we do not totally overthrow the beast. That
is the work of the Lord himself.
>Calvinist John Ponet (1514-1556) taught that when the people allow
> rulers to become idolators and wicked that God will punish the people
> with famine, pestilence and wars.
> But what about Romans 13: 1-7? The Catholics and the Church of
> England have interpreted Romans 13 to mean that the ruler has a divine right
> to govern the people, given to him by God. The people must obey the
> ruler, or government in all that he or it does.
Romans 13: 1-7 says “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
> For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
> God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
> of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
> 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: For he is the minister of God to
> thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he
> beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
> revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
> needs to subject, not only for wreath, but also for conscience sake.
> For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers,
> attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all
> their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;
> fear to whom fear; honor to whom honored.”
John Gill, in his 18th century commentary on the Bible says of Romans
> 13: 4 says that “He is a minister of
> God’s appointing and commissioning, that acts under him, and for him,
> is a kind of a vicegerent of his, and in some, sense represents him;
> and which is another reason why men ought to be subject to him; and
> especially since he is appointed for their “good”, natural, moral,
> civil, and spiritual, as Pareus observes: for natural good, for the
> protection of men’s natural lives, which otherwise would be in
> continual danger from wicked men; for moral good, for the restraining
> of vice, and encouragement of virtue; profaneness abounds exceedingly,
> as the case is, but what would it do if there were no laws to forbid
> it, or civil magistrates to put them in execution? for civil good, for
> the preservation of men’s properties, estates, rights, and liberties,
> which would be continually invaded, and made a prey of by others; and
> for spiritual and religious good, as many princes and magistrates have
> been; a sensible experience of which we have under the present
> government of these kingdoms, allowing us a liberty to worship God
> according to our consciences, none making us afraid, and is a reason
> why we should yield a cheerful subjection to it.”
Gill seems to be saying that Paul is describing Godly rulers,
> and that these Godly rulers should be respected and obeyed, as long as
> they are Godly.
John Knox, the sixteenth century Calvinist leader in Scotland, was
> sentenced to death by the Catholics in 1556. Knox said that the king
> and the lower level magistrates were not placed above the people to
> rule as tyrants. He said the chief duty of magistrates is to punish
> evil doing, and to support the well doers (Skinner, 1978, p.55).
> John Knox pointed out that Romans 13 defines the duty of rulers as one
> of punishing those who do evil, and to protect the people from those
> who would harm them..
> Like any other text in the Bible, Romans 13 needs to be interpreted in
> light of other Bible verses.
> One text that is often used to set some limits upon the interpretation
> of Romans 13 to mean we must obey rulers regardless of their policies,
> actions or words is Acts 5: 29. The Pharisees and the high priest
> had warned Peter and the other apostles not to teach in Christ’s name.
> Peter then said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
> If a ruler requires a Christian to do something that clearly violates
> a moral law in the Bible, then Acts 5: 29 should be applied rather
> than the view that Romans 13 commands us to obey the government
> regardless of what it does.
> There is more in the Bible that can be used to interpret Romans 13.
> The Ten Commandments and other moral laws in the Old and New
> Testaments were given to protect us from murder, theft,
> wife-stealing, harm to an unborn child (Exodus 21: 22), from being
> cheated by usury (Exodus 22: 25, etc) and some other harmful acts of
> The Old Testament speaks often of the rights of people. Psalm 9: 4
> says “For thou hast maintained my right and my cause.” Right is from
> mishpat, justice. Psalm 9: 4 says God will maintain the right to
> justice of the Psalmist.
> Psalm 140: 12 says “I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of
> the afflicted, and the right of the poor.” Afflicted is from aniy,
> humble, or lowly in circumstances, and poor is from ebyown, destitute.
> Some other texts that promise protection for the rights of the people
> are Proverbs 29: 7, and Proverbs 31: 9.
> “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write
> grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from
> judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people…
> (Isaiah 10: 1-2).” This is a warning from the Lord to rulers not to
> take away the rights of the people, especially of the poor. If the
> rulers make and enforce laws that cause harm or injustice to the
> powerless, then God says woe to them. This also applies to judges who
> judge unrighteously; it also applies to the police and prosecuting
> attorneys who charge innocent people with crimes.
> Then Isaiah 59: 14 says “And judgment is turned away backward, and
> justice standeth afar off : for truth is fallen in the street, and
> equity cannot enter.” Judgment is turned away backward and stands
> far off in many of our courts now. Equity is defined by Black’s Law
> Dictionary as “…the spirit and habit of fairness, justness and right
> dealing…” The confusion in America from our having become the
> Babylon of Prophecy means that moral standards have been lowered and
> many morals have been lost, and as Isaiah 59: 14 explains, “truth is
> fallen in the street.” We hear too many lies and are confronted with
> too much deception from government, the media and others.
> The American rulers at this point in time have failed to a great
> extent in their duty to punish evil and to reward good works.
> And the ruling elite have been moving behind the scenes to fully
> reestablish their absolute rule, which is something like the old divine right of
rulers so that just about all the
> people will be willing to obey them, no matter how oppressive they
> are.. They might then come out from behind the
> curtains into the open, perhaps when the devil, their leader, has come down
> “…unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but
> a short time (Revelation 12: 12).”