God’s Rulers

[rocknanchor]

My, how heated some get when you correct them. You might just find yourself getting the boot off some sites for inferring the following, as I did. Many Christians vacillate over Romans 13:1-5 but don’t know to line up the associated text to bring home the truth that God’s will is for ALL rulers to be Christian. Let’s start from the beginning, we know it is said,

''The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.'' (Acts 11:26)​

I’m certain you are of the same opinion that the mentioning of Christians is replaced in Romans 13:1-5 with ‘’God’s servant’’? Surely so, but in my opinion not omitted. For this not mentioning Christians in Romans 13 is not referring to the mere presence of a member of God’s civil order for any who would serve, for observe an important alignment:

''For He is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to the one doing evil.'' (Romans 13:4)​

No question, a servant of God to rule.

‘’Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.’’ (Romans 8:9)​

By V-9, who do we now see who the ‘’servant’’ is, but one with the Spirit of Christ by the will of God to rule as His own. No implied meaning at all, ‘’He is God’s’’ (Romans 13:4)

 

[rocknanchor]

In other words, Acts 11:26, mentions '', ,the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'' But not in Rom.13, except for V-4s ''God's servant''. Are all of these servants unquestionably Christian due to fact that, ,

''Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.'' (Rm 8:9) But then, V-4 already said the servant is His. Where does that leave the publican (Luke 18:10) but according to His word, would now be servant to the Christian servant to gather those taxes (Romans 13:6).