Covenanter Witness Vol. 54 - Rparchives.org

powers"
authorities"
authorities"
authorities"
right,"
gangsters'
state."
PREFATORY NOTE
The following
Open Letters
letter is published be
cause of some thought provoking ideas
presented. Attention should be called,
however, to the suggested translations,
"rightful
and "election by
show of hands," for "powers that be"
and
"ordained,"
respectively, as found in
the King James Version of the Bible. It
is by no means established that the
KJV was wrong at these points, or that
its translators so translated because
they were subservient to the King of
England, for in many instances of the
use of these words the American Revised
Version of 1901 and the Revised Stan
dard Version of 1952
which latter our
Synod has warned against because of its
"many imperfections"
the KJV.
both agree with
The Greek word exousia which is
translated by "power" in Romans 13
cannot be limited to "rightful authori
ty,"
because this word is frequently
used in the New Testament in speaking
of wicked, Satanic and demonic power
or authority. For example, Eph. 2 :2 and
6:12 speak of Satanic exousia; Jesus in
Luke 22:53 speaks of the exousia of
darkness; in Rev. 13:4, 5, 7, 12 we read
of the exousia of the beast. Moreover, in
Romans 13 Paul speaks of "the existing
using the Greek present parti
ciple, hai ousai exousiai, which cannot
be limited to "rightful
exist at some other time, but must in
clude
the authorities existing
to
at the
time of the writing and first reading of
the Epistle.
This letter, incidentally, shows the
danger of considering the KJV as the
standard version.
signed/The Editorial Committee
RIGHTFUL AUTHORITY
There is a worldly proverb to the ef
fect that "might makes but one
would not expect Christian scholars to
operate on that principle, as the trans
lators of the King James version seem
to have done. Thus in the first chapter
of John they have us given the power
to become sons of God, whereas what
the record says is the right to become
children of God. Likewise in Romans 13,
they talk about "the powers that be,"
whereas what Paul said was "the right
ful
world.
all the difference in the
Sensitive Christians have always been
concerned about their relation to the
pagan state, but they
have not been
helped by the King James version of
Romans 13. Rather has it entangled
them in their consciences to the point
where often they have not known
wheth-
April 13, 1955
er they were coming or going.
How
could they know when to obey God rath
er than men
Certainly the King James version was
not intended to be an honest translation.
The instructions the translators re
ceived make it clear that they were to
bolster the prejudices of the king, as is.
apparent by the high-church emphasis on
"ordination,"
where the original is mere
ly "election by show of hands," the in
sertion of "bishop" where "supervisor"
or "superintendent" would have served,
the arbitrary use of "Easter." One of
the rules followed was not to render the
Greek "ekklesia" by "congregation,"
which would have been a good transla
tion, but by "church," which played into
the hands of ecclesiasticism, inasmuch
as anything
not Church of England
could be regarded not as a church but as
a mere chapel. Some of the translators
complained that they couldn't follow
their own judgment but were hampered
by "reasons of
boot-lickers.
They had to be
In Romans 13, Paul is talking about
"rightful
authorities,"
and he gives their
ear-mafks, characteristics quite for
eign to the ordinary
operations of the
Roman imperial power, which was a
racket. Proper exegesis
the passage requires familiarity with
the whole of scripture, notably the
eighth chapter of First Samuel, where
God is on record in favor of the com
munal organization of society as against
the political state, which history shows
to have been always a device to enable
a privileged class to exploit the popula
tion.
Our fathers did a disservice in saying
that "the family, the church and the
institutions."
state are divine
They
should have said, "The family, the
church, and the community (local, re
gional, national, ecumenical) are divine
institutions."
of
The political state can not
be anything but pagan; any scholarly
political scientist knows that. Hence the
Christian always has to decide when to
obey it and when to obey God, and the
answer is to be determined on the basis
of all that is known about Christian
truth.
Even if Paul cherished unwarranted
personal hopes for the Christianization
of the Roman Empire
the sort of hopes
that eventuated in the paganization of
the church , and even if he tried to be
lieve that Nero was God's minister, we
can not let the personal limitations of
the apostle cloud the eternal truth he
was voicing. Very likely he "wrote bet
ter than he knew," as was often the
case with the prophets. We can't take
the meaning of Paul's words as just
what he, a mere man, saw in them; else
where were inspiration We shall always
have to determine by the ear-marks he
suggested what are the "rightful author-.
ities," and quite commonly that test
will rule out the mandates of the pagan
state, just as they did for the early
Christians.
This conclusion does not invalidate
government. All institutions have gov
ernments. But, if the Christian Amend
ment were passed and made operative,
we would be done with the political
state. We would have, not a Christian
state, which is a contradiction in terms,
but a Christian society, such as Israel
set aside in order to be like the nations.
It would not be perfect, but it would be
on a creative rather than a predatory
principle. That is what the world is
waiting for.
Arthur W. Calhoun
2950 West 14th Street,
Los Angeles 6, Calif.
March 31, 1955
Dr. Raymond D. Taggart,
Dear Friend,
In the Issue of February 23, 1955, of
The Covenanter Witness there was an
item, on page 127, entitled "Some Things
To Know."
It related to the matter
of
"Social
Security"
with particular
reference to Ministers. It noted some
of its effects, regarding coverage, etc.
Without going into detail, after study
and knowledge of its defects, after
twenty years of operation, it is time
for a due appraisal of its merits and
demerits.
First of all, we should remember,
that it was but and still it, a make-shift
measure, substituted for the first and
Plan"
original "Retirement for aged
citizens and those who have retired from
an active participation in the nation's
business and industrial world.
It was offered,
and enacted as a sub
stitute for the well known, and
thoroughly feasible, and truly consti
tutional American Retirement Plan, in
augurated by its founder Dr. Fftincis E.
Townsend.
This Plan, is as it has always been,
a Universal Pension or Retirement Plan,
variable, and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
The present Social Security Plan or
system, is a selective pension plan. It
pays benefits to some Americans, bars
others from benefits. In contrast, with
the Townsend Plan, which is based upon
the belief that pensions are a matter
of right. If it were in operation, the
government would not say to one citizen,
you,"
"You have a pension coming to
and to another, "Sorry, nothing for you.
Apply at your local well-fare office."
239