However, my question pertains to your comment about Mark Nanos’ statement that Ro 13:1 is about obeying the synagogue rulers.

I have regularly observed “church leadership” (elders, ministry staff, etc.) refer to Hebrews 13:17 and others as a call for the members to submit to the governing authority over them. I’ve seen this abused time and time again.

How would this be reconciled with Nanos’ statement?

When Ahab wanted Naboth’s vineyard, not by “taxation” but by free exchange, Naboth refused the transaction. Ahab knew he could not “force” the transaction in the Hebrew culture, it’s court systems would have come down on the side of Naboth, so he had to take another tactic to get what he wanted.

The book of Daniel, of course, contains the story of four young men who refused, in one way or another, to submit to the king’s authority. Daniel not only refused to submit, but was deliberately provocative (in my opinion) by opening the window for all to see, as was his custom. No doubt some of his friends suggested he close the window. After all, it was only for 30 days. And we know the outcome.

The first commandment, “no other gods” prohibits the follower of the Messiah from acknowledging any authority that attempts to go beyond its legitimate God-ordained jurisdiction. It is this aspect of biblical understanding that gave impetus to the West and its attempts to establish federalism – limited government – as a political system. And it is just ever so fascinating to find that the word federalism has its association and origin with the word covenant.

Thus, while the context of Paul’s teaching is important, it is not relevant to the question of unbridled obedience to any authority. That is handled quite well in the Torah, and it is hardly likely Paul was trying to change that. And the blood of he martyrs throughout history is evidence that a lot of people were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on that issue.

Christine

I would only add that it needs to lead to doing Torah. Yeshua bar Yosef said that it was those doing the will of his Father that would enter the kingdom, that is, doing/keeping Torah.

The Torah as a set is finite. It defines the Creator as outside of the physical realm. King Shlomoh put it clearly that the whole world cannot contain Him, 2Chron2:6 and did Daniel disagree with him? If so one of them are wrong. But neither of them need to be wrong. They simply can not mean opposite things. Shlomoh says no to divine-man so Daniel must be agreeing also on that point.

The physical universe is contained also in a set, i.e. all that is physical. But where did it come from? Not the physical. The Creator then by definition is outside the set of the physical. It is simply impossible to have divine-man, both outside and inside the physical universe.

This is how those who keep Torah non-selectively see the Creator. It may be that Boyarin and the rest understand this but their scholarship must meet the muster of logic, science, and accurate history. Remember he is not saying he considers divine-man a possibility. He is saying others do and that is what we must verify. Were these people Torah observant or Hellenist is also a logical question be cause a Hellenist is easily defined. What you haven’t come to grips with is what a non-selective Torah observant person is. We don’t even know if Boyarin is in that set, but that is another question which is not relevant except that you take him as an expert to prove a fact of history instead of using the facts of history. And you and I must not rely on others, be they rabbis, scholars, scientists, or any learned person. It they have figured something out, logic will determine if their calculations and ideas are correct. We can read them and hopefully not have to do the research ourselves but we have to determine that their research is logical.

We can very usefully pursue this historical investigation before we get to its theological implications.