I am quite convinced that understanding the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is foundational to properly exegeting Romans 13:1-7. I call this the “legitimacy interpretation.” I believe Paul is applying Jesus’ words in John 18:36 to the situation in Rome. I touched on this a bit in a previous post and…
via Riddlebarger on the Old Covenant Context of Romans 13 — Reformed Libertarian Blog
Contrast 
IN your main article, relight before the last paragraph, you state Israel was never required to submit to gentile rule. What about their time in exile? Daniel and Esther seem to indicate that submission was required, insofar as they were able. While there are examples of passive resistance, resisting the compromising of the dietary laws and idol worship, the idea that Israel was in some sense entitled to rise up against their gentile oppressors seems to take it too far. This contrasts with what I think your main point is; that Christians need only submit to governments that legitimately apply the legitimate means of rule, and may (must?) resist unjust rule. It just seems warranted to recognize that in various times and places God has placed his church under tyrants, and worse, and yet the idea of a ‘Christian uprising’ does not have the same warrant from scripture.
LikeLike
I didn’t say they were never required to. I said they were not required to simply because of providence (God’s decretive will). They were only required to when specifically commanded to by God (God’s preceptive will). His command to submit to Babylon was unique and required special revelation to indicate so.
Also, you misread my post if you think I was arguing in favor of a Christian uprising.
LikeLike
You might give this a read for more context http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/all-things-lawful-lbcf-24-3wcf-23-4/
LikeLike
Thanks, that answers what I was asking. The idea that one can recognize their rights, and refrain from demanding they be upheld, for the sake of Christ, resonates.
LikeLiked by 1 person