 She would like to better understand Romans 13 in light of what she has learned about the Divine Council and their role in being appointed over the world. Does that mean they have an effect on our governing authorities? Well, I would say I'll answer it this way just by. Let's start with the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. I might be unfamiliar to some. If it is unfamiliar to a listener, go up to the podcast landing page and up at the top where it says, are you new here? Watch these videos. Those are the videos you need to watch. One of them is about the Deuteronomy 32 worldview. So the Deuteronomy 32 worldview were the nations were allotted to other gods and gods to the nations as a punishment at Babel. That's what's behind Daniel 10, Prince of Persia, Prince of Greece, all that sort of stuff and their supernatural beings. And so, generally speaking, Scripture does teach that there are supernatural influences behind geopolitical entities. On another level, there are also people who aren't believers. In other words, people who aren't indwelt by the Holy Spirit and who are going to be, you know, more subject to potentially the influences of supernatural powers of darkness. They're running the nations too. So you've got two problems. You've got a supernatural problem and you've got a human problem. I think it's an over-reading of the situation to presume that supernatural forces are behind every political move or geopolitical situation. Because again, you've got two problems. You've got a supernatural intelligence. You know, again, that Scripture describes as being behind empire and countries and all that kind of stuff, governments. But you also have humans. You've got plenty of humans in the picture too who are fallen and corrupt and so on and so forth. So we should not assume that everything we see a government do or say has some sort of demon behind it or supernatural character behind it. That's an over-reading of not only the situation but also the text. You know, Scripture is pretty clear that all of us are quite capable of seeking self-gratification, power, autonomy, etc., because of our flesh. And that doesn't stop when we hold political office. It's just the most normal thing in the world. Deuteronomy 32, in other words, doesn't take the human factor off the table. They both have to be on the table. So yeah, supernatural intelligences do have an effect on governments, powers that be. But we have no way of seeing how that works at any given point or in any given circumstances. I think we're just better off remembering that we've got a supernatural problem here and also a very human problem. Second question is, I realize it is out of context. But we have many instances in the Old Testament of disobedience to authority such as Moses and Pharaoh, the Israelite, midwives, Daniel, and others. I've heard this passage preached as a blanket endorsement for allowing the government to do as it pleases and that it is all part of the plan. So just suck it up and look the other way. Yeah, to me, the keyword and the question here is allowing the government to do as it pleases. If you live in it, all governments are not the same. All governments are not created equal. If you live in a government that allows you the mechanism to protest your own government's actions, then you have the government's permission to do so. You're not violating Romans 13 by living out the rights that you have at your government's own creation or permission. So that would be incongruent to say Romans 13 says, don't ever pipe up about the evil that the government is doing. That's absurd. Now, a lot of people don't live in that situation. They live under a dictatorship or some sort of oligarchy or whatever, banana republic kind of situation. I think morally, and I'll get into a little bit, hopefully what we get into here in a few minutes here will explain why I say this, but you're not being asked by God to not expose sin. You're not being asked by God or commanded by God to not expose evil. You're supposed to do that. And there will be context where doing that puts you at great personal risk. And some of the examples that the questioner alluded to fit that bill. I think in some respects, the questioner sort of answered her own question. The examples that were listed here, the midwives and Daniel and so on and so forth, those examples tell us that there are exceptions to obedience to authority that God honors. The common denominator in those situations would be that the people who are trying to obey God are forced to sin otherwise. And in that situation, when your government, when the powers that are over you are trying to compel you to do evil, then you ought to disobey because God is the higher authority. And the higher authority does say things to Christians in the New Testament like expose the works of darkness, resist that which is evil. It just depends on our earthly circumstances as to how much potential harm that puts us in when we do those things. So if you are being compelled, and again the vocabulary here is important, if you're being compelled by your government, by the powers that be to do evil, then you need to obey the higher authority which would be God. Now you've got to be willing to take the consequences in certain situations. And guess what? The New Testament tells you that's what's going to happen. There's all sorts of discussion in the New Testament about suffering for righteousness is sake like Jesus did. This would be one of those, at least potentially. Now disobeying when you're being compelled to sin is different than disobeying a law when you're not being compelled to sin. For example, the government might do evil with your tax money. And trust me, our government does. The government may do evil with your tax money. At the same time, it does not force you to personally participate in that evil. So the government can be funding evil and that's one thing. It's quite another for the government to turn around and say, well we just took your taxes to do this evil thing and now we are going to force you to participate in that evil thing. We have scriptural precedent for this sort of situation. The Roman Empire, okay, the Roman Empire, these were not like, this wasn't a Christian government, okay. The Roman Empire to whom Jesus endorsed paying taxes. When he said render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar. And to God, the things that are gods. And New Testament writers, Peter and Paul say the same thing, pay your taxes, okay. The Roman Empire to whom Jesus endorsed paying taxes certainly did a lot of ungodly things with that money. Nevertheless, Jesus said, you're supposed to pay your taxes. Your modern example would be our government here in the U.S. uses tax money to subsidize Planned Parenthood. Okay, that's evil. But based on the scriptural analogy, yes, we are supposed to pay our taxes, but we are not scripturally justified therefore to disobey the government by refusing to pay the taxes. Okay, otherwise what Jesus said in the context of the Roman Empire wouldn't make any sense. Jesus would pay your taxes. The Christians, the Jews, whoever who were paying taxes to Rome, Jesus doesn't turn around and say, well if you pay that tax then you're like a participant. No, he doesn't say that. That's the kind of thing preachers say. Okay, just to guilt people out or to push some agenda or whatever. That is not what Jesus said. There's a difference between what an evil person does with a thing you give him and what you do. And the flip side of that is the compulsion issue. If the government would turn around and say, yeah, thanks for the money. Now we are going to force you to perform an abortion. That's something different. That's something different. That's being compelled to enact, to do the actual evil. And by scriptural example, yes, that should be resisted. And again, you're willing to take the consequences. So you would be justified in disobeying a law that compelled you to perform the abortion or whatever. What the government is taking money to promote some evil cause. So there are different things here. And compulsion is an important element of this. But at the very least, again, look at these examples with Jesus and the examples that the questionnaire brought up. It's very clearly incoherent to use Romans 13 and say that you should not expose evil and you should not resist evil. That's just incoherent. You do what your government allows you to do. If you're being compelled to sin, then you resist that and you may suffer. You may suffer for doing what's right.