Jesus and Violence

[jgarden]

"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" (Matthew 22:36-40)

This is the definitive statement on morality with the rest of mankind, and Jesus does not distinguish between personal and government morality. The government is merely a collection of individuals with commonalities. Is it murder if I, as an individual, kill someone of a different nation, but morally justified if I kill the same victim if I'm under orders and wearing a uniform?

The Nurenburg Trials established that "I was just following orders," is no defence! Many early Christian churches would not allow soldiers to belong to their congregations because they believed they would kill the enemy under orders. The Church took "Thou shall not kill," very seriously.

 

[eclipsoul]

And so finally, the answer to Romans 13 is found in Jesus' own words.


"Pilate said. “Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify
you?”

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to
you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a
greater sin.”

The phrase, 'greater sin', is meaningless unless Pilate has sinned.

Pilate had power and authority from God, for all power and authority are
derived from God. Yet he is still guilty of sin (though it is a lesser sin than of
those who handed over Jesus).

Yet, let us repeat this important fact:

Pilate, though in a position of power given to him from God, is still guilty of
sin for using that power incorrectly.

This is common sense, right?

The Nazi's, though given power by God, used that power wrongly. Saddam
Hussein, though given power by God, used that power wrongly. Stalin, Nero,
etc, etc.

Having God-given power does not exclude us from obeying God-given commands!

Lets say it again, loud and clear:



Having God-given power does not exclude
us from obeying God-given commands!



When Jesus says, "Love your enemies", this is a God-given command.
When Jesus says, "Do not resist injury", this is a God-given command.

Now, we can argue about whether or not Jesus really means what he says.
That is perfectly reasonable, and we ought to discuss it in great detail until
we have figured it all out.

But to hide behind Romans 13 and the government, well, its just silly.

Pilate could not hide behind Romans 13, and neither can we.

God Bless, and may the Peace of Christ rest upon us forever!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

All Pilate is saying is, "Look, this is a family matter for you guys to settle. Leave me out of it".

They still had no legal authority to arrest Him and Pilate wouldn't have become involved at all if charges of treason hadn't come up.

What is your source for your claim that they had no authority?

 

[12volt_man]

What is your source for your claim that they had no authority?

What is your source that they did? It's not up to me to try to argue a negative.

Show me what legal authority they had to arrest somoene under the Roman government and I will gladly withdraw my statement.

 

[12volt_man]

And so finally, the answer to Romans 13 is found in Jesus' own words.


"Pilate said. “Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify
you?”

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to
you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a
greater sin.”

The phrase, 'greater sin', is meaningless unless Pilate has sinned.

The "sin" Jesus is speaking of here is not Pilate's exercising his God given authority because to have the authority to do something, particularly from God, implies a moral authority, but in His role in the unjust trial and execution of Jesus.

By "greater" and "lesser" sins, Jesus is making a moral judgement of Pilate's own role in His execution, not that of the state.

Pilate's sin is more along the lines of Caiaphas' (greater), who's corruption is driving the trial and execution than of Judas (lesser), who is only a pawn in the event.

Pilate had power and authority from God, for all power and authority are derived from God. Yet he is still guilty of sin (though it is a lesser sin than of those who handed over Jesus).

But what sin?

Pilate, though in a position of power given to him from God, is still guilty of sin for using that power incorrectly.

Now you're getting it. Pilate's sin wasn't that He followed the law, but that he acted unjustly.

This is common sense, right?

Absolutely.

Having God-given power does not exclude us from obeying God-given commands!

Lets say it again, loud and clear:

Having God-given power does not exclude
us from obeying God-given commands!

I agree but, conversely, that we may find something distasteful also does not exclude us from obeying God given commands.

When Jesus says, "Love your enemies", this is a God-given command.
When Jesus says, "Do not resist injury", this is a God-given command.

Again, Jesus told these things to His followers, not the state. I think you're confusing the role of church and state.

Now, we can argue about whether or not Jesus really means what he says.

I don't believe we can. Given the urgency of His message, I don't believe that Jesus said things lightly.

But to hide behind Romans 13 and the government, well, its just silly.

So are there any other parts of scripture that you think we should ignore or are "silly"?

I don't know about your Bible, but mine says:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The KIV omits the phrase..."Except Romans 13".

Must be a copyists error.

Pilate could not hide behind Romans 13, and neither can we.

But we've just established that Pilate's sin wasn't following Romans 13.

What do you have against Romans 13? This passage tells us that God has ordained government to wield the sword to punish evildoers and calls the government "the minister of God to thee for good".

Now, if God tells us that these things are to "punish evildoers", this implies an objective morality.

Second, and much more importantly, if God calls them a "minister of God to thee for good", then why do you call it evil? That seems awfully bold to stand up against God like that, don't you think?

 

[eclipsoul]

What do you have against Romans 13? This passage tells us that God has ordained government to wield the sword to punish evildoers ... Now, if God tells us that these things are to "punish evildoers", this implies an objective morality.

I think perhaps I understand your position now.

Does Romans 13 command governments to punish evildoers?

Does Jesus give one set of commands for disciples, and another set of
commands for governments?

"Love your enemies" vs. "punish evildoers"

If you work for IBM, follow the one of the left?
If you work for CIA, follow the one on the right?

Clearly not.

Lets put an end to this. I will bring up the dreaded word, 'context'. I will let
you determine the context for yourselves. Who is Paul talking to? While
reading, think of the following two contexts:

1) Paul is talking to Christians inside government who are wondering
whether or not to punish evildoers. He is admonishing Christians to punish
evildoers, and to exact God's revenge upon them.

2) Paul is talking to Christians outside government who are wondering
whether to rebel against an evil government which is persecuting them. He is
adomonishing Christians not to rebel against unjust rulers (as he admonished
slaves not to rebel against unjust masters).

You decide.

Romans 12 - Romans 13 (With nothing left out)

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not kill,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This is something to ponder, isn't it?

Love does no harm - Paul
Love your enemies - Jesus

You will not kill - GOD

God Bless, and may the Peace of Christ be upon you all.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Show me what legal authority they had to arrest somoene under the Roman government and I will gladly withdraw my statement.

The following information all comes from William Barclay's The Mind of Jesus, Chapter 25, "The Trial of Jesus":

The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews. It began with Moses as is recorded in Numbers 11:16. It had jurisdiction over every Jew, and in the days of independent Israel could impose the death penalty.
During Roman rule the Sanhedrin still had authority in all civil and religious matters. The Romans only had jurisdiction in cases against the state. The only limit to Sanhedrin authority is that they could not order a penalty of death.

John chapter 18 states in several places that Jesus was arrested by the officers of the Jews. He was taken first to Annas, the former High Priest. During that same night he was taken to Caiaphas, the current high Priest. This is recorded in Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. The next morning He was tried before the entire Sanhedrin. (Matt. 27, Mark 15, Luke 23)
At the end of that day, because they did not have authority to sentence to death, the Jews took Jesus to Pilate. (Matt. 27, Mark 15, Luke 23). This is why they changed the charges from blasphemy, treason against God, to treason against Rome. Pilate would have absolutely no interest in charges of blasphemy because in religious matters the Jewish leaders had full authority to carry out their own laws.

 

[bornagainjohn14]

12 volt man is right. I'm tired of the cowardly who do not want to do gods work try to turn our religion into a pacifist one. Heres another verse:

Jer 48:10 "Cursed be those that do not do the work the lord has given them and hold back their swords from shedding blood."

 

[sinner/SAVED]

12 volt man is right. I'm tired of the cowardly who do not want to do gods work try to turn our religion into a pacifist one. Heres another verse:

Jer 48:10 "Cursed be those that do not do the work the lord has given them and hold back their swords from shedding blood."

I think with the attitudes of today it shows a special kind of bravery to choose to be a sheep instead of a goat.

 

[12volt_man]

2) Paul is talking to Christians outside government who are wondering whether to rebel against an evil government which is persecuting them. He is adomonishing Christians not to rebel against unjust rulers (as he admonished slaves not to rebel against unjust masters).

So, how can they be unjust when God calls them an "agent for good"?

Love does no harm - Paul
Love your enemies - Jesus

Again, both of these are speaking to Christ's followers, not the church. I think you're confusing the nature and roles of church and state.

You will not kill - GOD

I think you mean, "Thou shalt do no ratsach".

 

[12volt_man]

The following information all comes from William Barclay's The Mind of Jesus, Chapter 25, "The Trial of Jesus":

The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews. It began with Moses as is recorded in Numbers 11:16. It had jurisdiction over every Jew, and in the days of independent Israel could impose the death penalty.

But it still didn't have the authority to arrest anyone, even another Jew.

The Romans only had jurisdiction in cases against the state. The only limit to Sanhedrin authority is that they could not order a penalty of death.

Correct. The Romans had jurisdiction over cases against the state. This is why, when the Jews appealed to Pilate on religious grounds, he dismissed them and told them to clean up their own mess.

John chapter 18 states in several places that Jesus was arrested by the officers of the Jews. He was taken first to Annas, the former High Priest. During that same night he was taken to Caiaphas, the current high Priest. This is recorded in Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18. The next morning He was tried before the entire Sanhedrin. (Matt. 27, Mark 15, Luke 23)

But how can you appeal to John 18 without acknowledging that John 18 tells us in v 12 that "the company of soldiers, the captain, and the Jewish temple police arrested Jesus and tied Him up."

This is referring to the Roman soldiers and their commander.

I've already acknowledged that the temple high priest and his servants were involved but you're completely ignoring the text that tells us that they were led by the Roman guards.

I don't believe that's intentional on your part but you have to admit, it's a pretty egregous ommision.

This is why they changed the charges from blasphemy, treason against God, to treason against Rome. Pilate would have absolutely no interest in charges of blasphemy because in religious matters the Jewish leaders had full authority to carry out their own laws.

But they did not have the authority to arrest him. That is why John 18 tells us, which you forgot to mention, that they were led by the Roman guards and their officer(s).

 

[eclipsoul]

So, how can they be unjust when God calls them an "agent for good"?

Great question!

In my opinion, God uses everybody. He used the devil in Job. He used the
Babylonians to punish Israel. He used Judas in the Gospels. He uses
everyone, and nothing (not even evil) can escape serving his purpose.

God uses evil to destroy evil.

Regardless, no one is denying that government can't do good things. What
we are denying is that Romans 13 is a command to Christians inside
government, telling them to punish and kill enemies that Jesus commands
them to love.

But let me ask you a question.

Who is Paul talking to - Christians or governments?

Let me offer an analogy to my thinking, not in order to convince you, but in
order to communicate how I understand Romans 13. If I can do that, perhaps
you will be able to see the flaw in my thinking, and allow me to understand all
of this better. Perhaps you will see a flaw in your own thinking. Either way,
lets work to resolve this.

The analogy is this:

I tell my child, "Now you must be good to all the creatures in the forest. In
particular, you must be good to the wolf. Though she is a fierce creature,
you have nothing to worry about if you treat her with respect and you mind
your own business. But my son, if you treat her without respect and if you do
not leave the wolf, but instead try to hunt it down, then an awful fate awaits
you. The wolf will devour you, and it will be all your fault. But child, you
have nothing to fear if you do the right thing."

Another analogy is this:

I tell my college bound daughter, "My darling child, I want you to be good to
all the men college. In particular, you must be good to the sinners who spend
their time drinking and doing drugs. They will need the support of a good
christians lady, to show them what virtue is. Yet do not leave yourself alone
with them, and do not have even one drink. If you do have a drink, you may
have another, and then you may become drunk. Then, alone and drunk with
you, they may attack and rape you. And if you've put yourself in that
position, you will have brought judgment down upon your own head. God will
punish you for your disobedience. But child, you have nothing to fear if you
do the right thing."

So, that is my position on Romans 13. They are mere analogies, but they
show what I mean when I say that Paul is talking to Christians and not
not governments. Paul is talking to the boy, not the wolf. Paul is talking to
the college aged daughter, not the rapist. Paul is giving advice about how we
act justly, not about how governments act justly. He tells us not to rebel
against them, because they will smash us - and such smashing will come from
God, because we rebelled (not because smashing done by government is
okay, not because raping drunk girls in college is okay, not because wolves
who kill children are acting justly).

But please, I am only trying to communicate how I see it, and do desire your
thoughts.

Again, both of these are speaking to Christ's followers, not the church. I think you're confusing the nature and roles of church and state.

You've said this often, but I don't see why you believe it is so. Help me out.

Which piece of scripture leads you to believe that Jesus said, "I give these
commands to individuals, but if you are in the government, then you can
ignore them."

I know your belief isn't based simply on Romans 13, but I'm not sure where
you have found this idea that Jesus makes a distinction between commands
intended for use on all levels, and commands intended only to be used on a
personal level.

Please help me to understand your position by pointing out which scriptures
have led you to believe that Jesus makes these distinctions.

Thanks, and God Bless.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

But it still didn't have the authority to arrest anyone, even another Jew.

But they did not have the authority to arrest him. That is why John 18 tells us, which you forgot to mention, that they were led by the Roman guards and their officer(s).

KJV John 18:3 Judas then, having recieved a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
John 18:12 Then the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him.

No mention of anyone but the Jewish leaders making the arrest.

NASB mentions a Roman cohort accompanying the Jews, but says that the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus.

Barclays The Mind of Christ says that the Sanhedrin had full authority to arrest any Jew charged with a civil or religious crime.

Will Durant in The Story of Civilization Vol.3: Ceasar and Christ page 536 states: "These seventy-one men, under the presidency of the high priest, claimed supreme power over all Jews everywhere and orthodox Jews everywhere acknowledged it; but the Hasmodeans, Herod, and Rome recognized their authority only in violations of Jewish Law by a Judean Jew. They could pass sentence of death upon Jews in Judea for religious offences, but could not execute it without confirmation by the civil power."

The Sanhedrin had full authority to arrest any Jew.

In Christ,

s/S

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Again, both of these are speaking to Christ's followers, not the church. I think you're confusing the nature and roles of church and state.

What exactly is the difference between "Christ's followers" and "the church"?

 

[12volt_man]

What exactly is the difference between "Christ's followers" and "the church"?

Technically, the church had not been established yet, but for the purposes of this conversation, there is no practical difference.

The fact remains that the church is not the government and the government is not the church.

 

[12volt_man]

KJV John 18:3 Judas then, having recieved a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
John 18:12 Then the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound him.

Yes, this is pretty much what I said:

There were Roman guards and Jewish leaders and Jesus was arrested.

Given the fact that the Jews did not have the legal authority to arrest anyone, I think we have to conclude from the context that the Roman guards, who did have the authority, arrested Him.

I had an incident about six months ago where I had to have someone arrested. The sheriff and I confronted this person, I filed a complaint on the spot, the sheriff filed charges on my behalf. My name is on the arrest record. I testified against this person in court.

Now, I was there and it was on my charge that this woman was arrested but I had no legal right to arrest her. All I could do was appeal to the law and let the sheriff's officers arrest her

No mention of anyone but the Jewish leaders making the arrest.

So then, you just ignore any mention of the Roman guards and their officer(s)?

NASB mentions a Roman cohort accompanying the Jews, but says that the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus.

Would you mind citing this verse from the NASB for us?

Barclays The Mind of Christ says that the Sanhedrin had full authority to arrest any Jew charged with a civil or religious crime.

What does he base this on?

Will Durant in The Story of Civilization Vol.3: Ceasar and Christ page 536 states: "These seventy-one men, under the presidency of the high priest, claimed supreme power over all Jews everywhere and orthodox Jews everywhere acknowledged it; but the Hasmodeans, Herod, and Rome recognized their authority only in violations of Jewish Law by a Judean Jew. They could pass sentence of death upon Jews in Judea for religious offences, but could not execute it without confirmation by the civil power."

Thank you for illustrating my point.

The Sanhedrin had full authority to arrest any Jew.

Not according to the source you just quoted.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Yes, this is pretty much what I said:

There were Roman guards and Jewish leaders and Jesus was arrested.

Given the fact that the Jews did not have the legal authority to arrest anyone, I think we have to conclude from the context that the Roman guards, who did have the authority, arrested Him.

The KJV which I cited makes no mention of any Romans being in the group that arrested Jesus. It states "the officers from the chief priests".



So then, you just ignore any mention of the Roman guards and their officer(s)?

See above.



Would you mind citing this verse from the NASB for us?

NASB John 18:12
So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.



What does he base this on?

He cites the Jewish "Mishnah" and the Jewish historian Josephus



Thank you for illustrating my point.



Not according to the source you just quoted.

The source I quoted stated that the Sanhedrin had authority of arrest, trial, and conviction of all Jews in Judea for religious crimes. Jesus was a Jew. Was in Judea. Was accused of a religious crime.

 

[Judge158]

Hey everyone, this is my first post!!! interesting topic...violence and war...hmmm. i thought i'd share with you an interesting perspective i heard about from a 36-page exegetical paper on Christ's "turn-the-other-cheek" teachings. interestingly enough, the writer of the paper, whose name i cannot remember at the present time, talks about turning the other cheek really ment nothing more than disrespect for the other man when he hit you. he spoke of being hit by backhanding, bringing the right hand across from the left side to the right, therefore being hit by the other mans knuckles...therefore to turn the other cheek, you would have to turn to face almost the same direction as him, making yourself an equal. another interesting passage from that same paper was about if the roman asks you to carry his pack for a mile, carry it for 2...that can be taken not as serving the roman, but by saying "i'm stronger than you," another matter of disrespect. i'm sorry i dont have the details from the paper, i read it in the library at college, and i'm home for break now...so this argument is so weak it probably shouldnt even be called an argument...but the paper had some very interesting thoughts in it. as far as war goes, i believe that God uses His people to further His will...if someone feels called to join the armed services...i dont think his actions are wrong. and if i have the opportunity to save another from an attacker, a mugger or a rapist, through violence, i will...because while i may be called to turn my own cheek, i am not called to turn someone elses...to make them suffer because i am against violence.

 

[12volt_man]

The KJV which I cited makes no mention of any Romans being in the group that arrested Jesus. It states "the officers from the chief priests".

Again, you ignore v 12, which does mention Roman soldiers and their officers.

See above.

OK, so then the answer, apparently is "yes".



Would you mind citing this verse from the NASB for us?

NASB John 18:12
So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.

Actually, it says that the Roman guards and the Jewish priests and their servant arrested Jesus.

Given the context of the passage and the fact that the Jews did not have the legal authority to arrest Him, I have to assume that the priests simply confrinted Him, while the guards actually arrested Him.

I had an incident about six months ago where I had to have someone arrested. The sheriff and I confronted this person, I filed a complaint on the spot, the sheriff filed charges on my behalf. My name is on the arrest record. I testified against this person in court.

Now, I was there and it was on my charge that this woman was arrested but I had no legal right to arrest her. All I could do was appeal to the law and let the sheriff's officers arrest her.

Which one of us actually arrested her?

What does he base this on?

He cites the Jewish "Mishnah" and the Jewish historian Josephus

Since most of the people reading this do not have access to those documents, why don't you cite them for us?

The source I quoted stated that the Sanhedrin had authority of arrest, trial, and conviction of all Jews in Judea for religious crimes. Jesus was a Jew. Was in Judea. Was accused of a religious crime. [/color]

Actually, Jesus was arrested and brought before Pilate for treason, not a "religious crime".

You even acknowledged this in a previous post:

This is why they changed the charges from blasphemy, treason against God, to treason against Rome.

 

[12volt_man]

In my opinion, God uses everybody. He used the devil in Job. He used the
Babylonians to punish Israel. He used Judas in the Gospels. He uses
everyone, and nothing (not even evil) can escape serving his purpose.

God uses evil to destroy evil.

But these evil entities are not ordained by God as "agents of good" or to "punish evildoers", are they?

Regardless, no one is denying that government can't do good things. What we are denying is that Romans 13 is a command to Christians inside
government, telling them to punish and kill enemies that Jesus commands
them to love.

So on what basis do you deny this?

You want it both ways. You want to say that government has to follow a set of commands that doesn't pertain to it and was never meant to, but at the same time, you want to say that Christians aren't bound to the teaching concerning government.

This is inconsistent on your part.

But let me ask you a question.

Who is Paul talking to - Christians or governments?

He is explaining the nature and role of government to Christians in the church at Rome.

If I can do that, perhaps you will be able to see the flaw in my thinking, and allow me to understand all of this better.

I already see the flaw in your thinking: you do not understand the difference in the nature and role of government and the church and you seem not to be overly concerned with following the context of the passage.

I tell my child, "Now you must be good to all the creatures in the forest. In particular, you must be good to the wolf. Though she is a fierce creature, you have nothing to worry about if you treat her with respect and you mind your own business. But my son, if you treat her without respect and if you do not leave the wolf, but instead try to hunt it down, then an awful fate awaits you. The wolf will devour you, and it will be all your fault. But child, you have nothing to fear if you do the right thing."

What in the world are you talking about?

I tell my college bound daughter, "My darling child, I want you to be good to all the men college. In particular, you must be good to the sinners who spend their time drinking and doing drugs. They will need the support of a good christians lady, to show them what virtue is. Yet do not leave yourself alone with them, and do not have even one drink. If you do have a drink, you may have another, and then you may become drunk. Then, alone and drunk with you, they may attack and rape you. And if you've put yourself in that position, you will have brought judgment down upon your own head. God will punish you for your disobedience. But child, you have nothing to fear if you do the right thing."

How do you analogize this to Romans 13?

Paul is giving advice about how we act justly, not about how governments act justly. He tells us not to rebel against them, because they will smash us - and such smashing will come from God, because we rebelled (not because smashing done by government is okay, not because raping drunk girls in college is okay, not because wolves who kill children are acting justly).

So then, what God has set in place and called good, you compare to a rapist?

That's between you and God, I guess.

You've said this often, but I don't see why you believe it is so. Help me out.

I believe it is so because the Bible tells us it is so.

Which piece of scripture leads you to believe that Jesus said, "I give these commands to individuals, but if you are in the government, then you can ignore them."

If you're going to resort to straw man arguments, at least make it a good straw man.

Why would I believe this? As I've said several times now (I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it any simpler for you), Christ's commands to His followers and Paul's teaching concerning the nature and role of government are two different teachings concerning two different things.

They cannot be compared anymore than you can ask whether Julius Erving or Pat Sullivan was the better baseball player.

Please help me to understand your position by pointing out which scriptures have led you to believe that Jesus makes these distinctions.

This thread is several pages old now and I've pointed them out already. If you wouldn't listen before, why should I list them again?