Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 19:31:25 -0500


Jon Peter wrote:

>
> Hello Jeffrey...
>
> I have not read Elliot's book, and so can't comment on it. It sounds quite
> interesting and I will add it to my list.
>
> As for Rom 13.1-7... You referred to my "pseudo-remonstration" idea in
> connection with 1Co 13.33ff, and here in Rom. I think the same possibility
> can be offered. For Paul to advise Christians in Rome to knuckle under to
> authorities, and mean this with a straight face as he seems to, is quite
> absurd. The explanation I come up with is that Paul is writing favorably
> for submission in order to furnish Christians in Rome with documentation
> they can use if need in their legal defense. He does not really believe that
> secular authorities are legitimate before God. Rather -- knowing that his
> epistles are read aloud and circulated -- but wants this text to make the
> Church appear to be loyally law-abiding so as to fend off more trouble.
>

May I ask several questions?

First, When according to your view is Romans written? I ask this because it is
important in establishing or disconfirming what is otherwise a hidden
assumption in
your view, namely, that Christians not only *were* in some sort of trouble
with the
Roman authorities, but were also known by Paul to be in this trouble, such
that he
felt or anticipated that some form of defence was necessary/and or desirable.

Second, why would *Roman* authorities accept anything *Paul* said as having
any kind
of legitimacy, let alone the kind that would exculpate Christians from real or
potential legal suspicion? Had not Paul done enough in Roman
colonies/jurisdictions--and if Tom Wright and Neil Elliott are correct in
their views
about Paul's Gospel as anti-imperial and one who, as herald of King Jesus,
challenged imperial pretentions--rendered himself long before the writing of
Romans as
someone who was rather politically suspect?

Third, do you have any evidence that any other text in Romans is
"pseudo-remonstration"? Can it be said that it really is a strategy he adopts
in
Romans?

Yours.

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page