PAUL IN ROMANS 13 WHEN HE SAID OBEY THE GOVERNMENT AND JESUS WHEN HE SAID THAT YOU MUST RENDER TO CAESAR WERE AFFIRMING THAT NATIONS USING THE CRUEL JEWISH LAW MUST BE OBEYED

In Romans 13 Paul famously wrote about the divine duty to obey governments.  This would cover nations or communities that were living by the Old Testament Law of Moses.  The Jewish Law had no real authority in Palestine at that time but it was hoping for that to be reinstated. 

In 1 Corinthians 5:12 he said he had no business judging those outside the Church.  This may mean that secular politics was not part of his program but the Church clearly had a discipline and legal system.

Paul could not let the Church dabble in politics for it was a persecuted and hated minority and there would have been no point.  It had a politics of its own.  He wanted to start from the bottom and so he wanted to concentrate on influencing society rather than go in at the deep end into politics. This made perfect sense.

The Corinthians reference may only mean he cannot judge outsiders for he knows too little about them and what they believe and think they should do to pass judgement. But on occasion Paul did judge so he meant he could only withhold judgment in this instance.
 
Paul commanded in the name of God that we must support governments and accept them so he would have agreed with supporting a Jewish state that executed apostates and adulterers and witches and fortune-tellers by reporting them if you were obliged by the law to. And also by giving the state money to fund the executions. We conclude that if godless governments could enact acceptable capital punishment laws how much more could the Jewish law given by God do it. The laws would be ethical and unchangeable. Paul is not saying the pagan governments are always right but he is saying they must always be obeyed. He is saying that obedience comes before human life.

In Romans 7:1-6  Paul says that the Christian dies to the law in the same way as a woman is free to marry again when her husband dies.  Paul seems to be confused in this passage about whether the Christian is like the wife who is freed from the law of marriage to her husband when he dies or the Christian is like the husband who has died.  This passage is put out by those who say it proves that the law is dead to Christians.  But why can't the Christian die to the law and the law to the Christian setting the Christian free to marry it again?  What Paul writes says nothing about the law changing in anyway or being abolished.  As marriage is not abolished by the death of a spouse but restored when a remarriage happens so the same law can be affirmed a second time after discarding it.  If anything the text reinforces the importance of the law as it is.

Briefly God couldn’t repeal the laws for he said the Law was everlasting meaning it was for all times and places for he never hinted of any non-literal interpretation so when he commanded the stoning of adulterers he wanted it to be done forever and never spelled out what circumstances did or didn’t justify the carrying out of that law or gave any hint that a different punishment could be decided upon.

God told Moses that if a man lies with a man it is an abomination and they must be put to death. The purpose of such treatment was to purge the evil out of the midst of the people and the sinners are said to have only themselves to blame for being put to death (Leviticus 20:27) because it is just what they asked for meaning it is only fairness to have them executed. To suggest that they had to be slain out of necessity to protect the weak people from rebellion and deter them and not because of justice denies the words of God when he said that they have nobody to blame but themselves. To suggest that they had to be killed to deter the people is blaming the people not just the sinners who would not be slain if the people were stronger. Besides, if God had to have homosexuals put to death so cruelly because they would be a bad example it suggests that homosexuality can be induced in others and that anybody can become gay. Or it suggests a huge part of society is gay and needs to be discouraged from practicing.

The Bible says that kidnappers who steal their fellow Israelite to make a slave of him – Deuteronomy 24:7 – must be put to death to purge the evil from the midst of the people. The kidnapper could be easily prevented from reoffending but the homosexual cannot so the homosexual should be more eagerly destroyed than the kidnapper and his sin is more intolerable. Disobedient sons were also to be slain to purge the evil from the midst of the people – Deuteronomy 21:21. Disobedience to the decision made by the priests in legal matters from bloodshed or to other injustice must be punished by death for they must be followed to the letter and any disobedience must be purged from the midst of the people by putting them to death (Deuteronomy 17:12, 13). This commands that even if the people are unable for some reason to execute the perverts they must not tolerate this sin and must not show the homosexual any kindness for the sin is so bad that it would be unkind to the homosexuals to do anything that lets them forget their sin. They should be expelled from your company at the very least and they should not be spoken to or befriended. Doing this is a kindness because their sin is so terrible and it is kindness to ourselves for they have no right to ask for our acceptance and are trying to corrupt us by asking for it. None of this fits a moving with the times attitude.

Moreover, the Old Testament uses a phrase for man with man that Paul uses in his condemnation of gay sex in Romans 1 and Paul refers to the death penalty with approval.  This is affirming that the law in the Old Testament that man with man sexually merits the death penalty is valid.

If  you take the Law of Moses as a legal system as it was when Israel was free, then Paul is affirming that if it is the civil law then obey it.  Jesus did the same thing by telling the Jews to pay the tax to Caesar.