Corpus-Paul

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>]

L.M. Barre" wrote:
>  
> Dear List,

> Thesis: Paul's injunction in Romans 13 that Christian's should obey the 
> governing authorities is naive and biased by the fact that he was a Roman 
> citizen.  His naivete was supremely demonstrated by the fact that Caesar, 
> to whom so he so confidently appealed, had him executed for no reason at 
> all.  One may detect his great disillusionment in the reading of 2 Timothy.

> One will also wish to consider the fact that the Romans also executed 
> Jesus.  Appeal to the NT regarding submission to government authority is 
> finally ideologically based.

To which I responded:

> A difficulty I have with this thesis is that it starts out by assuming what 
> actually needs to be proven, namely, that in Rom 13 Paul actually urges 
> *obedience*, let alone an unqualified obedience, to the governing (Roman) 
> authorities. As I understand things, and as has been argued by C.E.B. 
> Cranfield ("Some Observations on Romans XIII:1-7," NTS 6 [1959-60] 242], 
> the imperative hUPOTASSESQW calls for sub*ord*ination, which is something 
> quite different from obedience, especially if obedience be understood in 
> terms of completely bending one's will and one's actions to the desires of 
> another.

He Now Writes:

How different is it?  The issue civl obedience, is it not?  Governments
have laws and insist that they be obeyed or the disobedience will be
punished.  I submit that we do not face here an exegetical crux.

I also wrote: 
> Nor does the thesis seem to take into account that there is a rather 
> sophisticated analysis of  how unabsolute any claim by the "authorities" to 
> obedience actually is standing behind the remainder of the passage. But I 
> think this is a question that Neil Elliott should address.

His response is:

Sohisticated or sophistry?  I would like to hear that.

Thank you.

Dr. Barre