Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Romans 13:1-7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: RSBrenchley AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Romans 13:1-7
  • Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:42:11 EDT


> Hi Robert,
>
> I really don't see any problem here and it certainly would not appear to
> be out of line with Paul. In the pastoral letters which are deemed for the
> most part to be pseudo-Pauline, there are instructions to pray for the
> authorities that be (1 Tim.2:1-3)to insure a peaceful existence and that
such
> prayers are acceptable to God. Moreover, I would also add that 1 Tim.6:13
> mentions the "good confession" that Christ gave to Pontius Pilate. What was
> this "good confession"? If I may bring the Fourth Gospel into this
discussion,
> there is an interesting statement made there by Jesus that is related to
the
> question of authority in Rom.13:1-7. "So Pilate said to Him, 'You do not
> speak to me? Do You not know that I have the authority(EXOUSIAN) to release
> You, and I have authority (EXOUSIAN) to crucify You?' Jesus answered, 'You
> would have no authority (EXOUSIAN) over Me unless it had been given you
from
> above;...'" (John 19:10-11; NASB)Certainly, if Jesus himself could
> acknowledge the authority of the pagan Roman procurator Pontius Pilate as
> coming "from above", ie.from God, then why would suchan an issue seem
> incongruent to Paul? Best regards,
>
> Tony Costa
> University of Toronto


Neither of the 1 Timothy passages (which I don't accept as Pauline,
incidentally) are inconsistent as far as I can see with the idea that the
author was advising the church to keep out of trouble. I have no problem with
that at all. John 19: 10-11 seems consistent with 4G's idea of the
crucifixion as being within the purposes of God; Pilate is allowed the
authority over Jesus which is necessary to enable it to occur, yet this is
negated in Jesus' triumph over 'the world' and its ruler. the authority which
Jesus is granted 'over all SARKOS' (17:2) surely includes authority over
Caesar, Pilate, and all the rest of the unholy crew!

The problem with Romans 13 is the apparent absolutisation of what we
would nowadays call secular authority, which I don't see elsewhere in the
Bible. If 'all authority is from God' is meant in an absolute sense, then God
can be used to legitimate any tyranny whatsoever - effectively to rubberstamp
just anything provided it comes from some sort of human authority. We end up
with a situation where God can be reduced to little more than the servant of
the state, and we must obey man rather then God, on the authority of the
Bible. After having to get my daughters out of a situation where girls were
being kidnapped wholesale as sex slaves, soldiers were looting and killing
everywhere, and the government was nothing more than a bunch of bandits -
I've spoken to people who saw the Chief Secretary of State out on the streets
directing the looting - that sort of theology fills me with horror. Nobody
with an ounce of realism in them can say that 'rulers are not a terror to
good works'; it's all too often untrue, and that applies to the Roman Empire
and its relations with the Jews as strongly as to any other situation. Paul
was surely no fool, so how could he have held such an opinion, if it really
does mean what it's traditionally been taken to mean?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page