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: "Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Romans 13:1-7
  • Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:10:03 -0400


Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6-8 make clear that, at the time when Paul
was writing the letters by which we now know him, he was no longer a Jew. In
fact, Philippians 3:6 says that Judaism is why he had persecuted the
followers of Jesus, and 3:8 asserts that Judaism is trash. And Galatians
1:13-14 likewise says that it was Paul's Judaism that had caused him to
persecute the followers of Jesus. I Thessalonians 2:14-16 (which my book
will argue is, indeed, authentic) also presents the charge that Jews
persecute Christians. For these and other reasons, I do not accept the "New
Perspective" view that Paul was a Jew at the time when he was writing the
letters by which we know him (or should be trying to know him).

Consequently, your argument that we should start with the assumption that
Romans 13:1-7 ought to be interpreted within the framework of Judaism, is,
from my perspective, starting from a false premise. When you refer to Paul
as "a 1st Century Jew," this is not the Paul who wrote the epistles; it is
the man prior to that, and whom he now repudiated. Romans 13:1-7 was written
by a Roman and a Christian, not by any kind of Jew, except a former Jew.

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net

----- Original Message -----
From: <RSBrenchley AT aol.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:30 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 13:1-7


> > Despite Tim Harris' (below) and others' statements to the effect that
Romans
> > 13:1-7 is morally unobjectionable, that passage clearly and
unambiguously
> > asserts that a ruler serves as God's agent rewarding the virtuous and
> > punishing the guilty during this, our mortal, life. Therefore, it does,
for
> > example, clearly and unambiguously, logically necessessarily, imply
that
> > Hitler was God's agent, and that his millions of victims were, in
accord
> > with Romans 13:3, evildoers. Similarly, Stalin's millions of victims
were
> > evildoers, even though Stalin, unlike Hitler, was not a Christian.
> >
> > Romans 13:1-7 ought, I think, to be viewed as part of Paul's campaign
> > against the Law and for faith as God's post-Crucifixion requirement in
> order
> > for a person to win salvation in the afterlife. Paul's gospel of Christ
> > created a lacuna or void for judgment during our mortal lives. In
Judaism,
> > God's covenant applied both during, and after, life. Paul ended that,
so
> > that God's judgment applied only after life. Paul, in Romans 13:7, was
> > saying that the ruler was God's agent while we are alive; to Paul, the
law
> > was no longer directly of divine origin, but God had sub-contracted it
to
> > the ruler. Romans 13:1-7, therefore, was an important part of Paul's
system
> > of morality, replacing that of Judaism.
> >
> > Eric Zuesse
> > cettel AT shoreham.net
> >
>
> I'm glad you see the objection, but I wonder whether this would have
been
> possible for a 1st Century Jew. This would imply that God had
subcontracted
> his divine authority to, say, Antiochus Epiphanes. In this case, the
> Maccabees and their successors would presumably have been rebels against
God.
> Paul may have re-interpreted Judaism in a pretty radical way, but I don't
see
> him as taking a position which involves such a total rejection as this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Brenchley
> RSBrenchley AT aol.com
> Birmingham UK
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: cettel AT shoreham.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page