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 22:51:03 -0400


Tim Harris says of "the question of Paul's agenda in Romans 13:1-7, I find
it hard to believe that his views are simply naive, given his own
experiences of the fickleness of authority."

This misconstrues my point, which is that Paul had no interest in that. You
are simply assuming that Paul's chief interest was in writing truthfully. He
was instead a very practical man, who, for example, in Romans 3:7, asked
rhetorically, "If God's truth is aggrandized when I lie, am I really a
sinner?" In other words, to Paul, the human truth of a given matter was of
secondary importance. Serving what he saw as "God's truth" was more
important than mere human truth. Whether or not mortal rulers are actually
doing God's will was purely a human concern to Paul, and he felt that he had
bigger eschatological fish to fry than that.

If Paul were to have taken a different tack, such as Tim Harris assumes, of
trying to be literally truthful, rather than to be successful in attaining
Paul's objective, then Paul's objective of converting, ultimately, the
leadership of the Roman Empire itself, such as actually occurred with
Constantine in 312 CE, would never have occurred. This is, for example, the
reason why Paul, and his followers who wrote the Gospels, blamed the
crucifixion on the Jews, rather than on the Roman regime itself. This may
not have been truthful, but it was very practical.

Tim, just how much appeal to future Roman Emperors would Christianity have
likely had if the people who had written and assembled the New Testament had
truthfully acknowledged there that the Roman regime had itself executed
Jesus? Not much, I hope that you'll agree.

And, similarly, how much appeal to those Emperors would a religion have had
that failed to label the Emperor as God's mortal agent upon the earth
judging men during their mortal stay? Wasn't a statement such as Romans
13:1-7 a very practical requirement for the ultimate success of the religion
that Paul and his followers were designing?

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Harris" <tim.harris AT stmatts.asn.au>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:22 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 13:1-7


> Eric Zuesse wrote:
>
> >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...
>
> I think that Eric has substantially misconstrued my comments, which were
> making no moral evaluation of Paul's comments in Romans 13:1-7 one way or
> the other - and I doubt whether C-P is the place to enter into such a
> dialogue. Let me limit my reply to the interpretation and possible context
> of Romans 13.
>
> 1. It was undoubtedly the case that any follower of the crucified Jesus of
> Nazareth would have had cause to reflect deeply on issues of authority,
> justice or injustice and persecution. My view that is that the New
> Testament and other early Christian writings reflect a development and
> variety of views, no doubt shaped in some measure various experiences.
>
> 2. My understanding of the general consensus is that in the earlier period
> prior to the Neronian persecutions, conflict was largely localised and
> should not be projected as a general state of affairs. The recent Horsley
> forum and comments in regard to Galatia demonstrated that the types of
> issues current in one region may be quite distinctive. The view that to
> affirm Christ as the Lord stands as a direct rejection of Caesar as the
> Lord is stimulating, but at present unproven. However, I note further
> studies exploring this area, and await with interest to see what evidence
> can be marshalled to substantiate such claims.
>
> 3. The pressure to participate in the imperial cult is certainly reflected
> in some NT writings, but this was largely an eastern movement associated
> with the Greek cities of Asia Minor, and should not be projected back to
> Rome. The issue in Rome was more one of the acceptance of such worship.
> Throughout the 1st century CE, Rome itself was still in a state of
> political turmoil, and the conventions of monarchial power and imperial
> order and far from being established without challenge. Issues of monarchy
> and kingship were a regular item on the agenda of philosophical discourse,
> and my main comment in regard to Romans 13:1-7 is that the general topos
of
> such a passage, and some demarcation of authority and the administration
of
> affairs in relation to the gods was common. There are classically two
> distinctive aspects to such discussions. One is that the provision of some
> form of human authority is inevitable, even though the form of such
> authority may differ. It would seem to me that Paul affirms the notion of
> human authority as a provision of God - it is the notion of some form of
> governing authority that is instituted by God. It is certainly not a
> complete statement about civil authorities, nor the last word as far as
the
> NT is concerned.
>
> There is a second level of discourse that was also common in philosophical
> discourse about authority - what are the characteristics of good
> kingship/authority, and of tyranny or abuse of authority? The language of
> meekness in the Gospels needs to be understood against such a discourse.
It
> would seem to me that Paul in Romans 13:1-7 doesn't buy into this issue at
> all, but assumes only benevolent authority. For me the issue is not what
> Paul does say (on the assumption of responsible authority), but what he
> doesn't say - the scope for dissent or rejection of authority as a matter
> of conscience. The silence concerning the possibility of tyranny is
> striking viewed in the context of philosophical discourse, which suggests
> to me that Paul's concerns are more specific, probably missiological, and
> tied up more particularly with specific circumstances in Rome. There were
> certainly political issues tied to questions of ethnic identity and the
> delineation of the identity of the Christian communities that are clearly
> in debate in Rome. In mid-first century Rome, identification with the
> customs of the Jewish community in Rome would have significant
implications
> at a variety of levels - and so too some distancing from such customs.
>
> 4. This raises the question of Paul's agenda in Romans 13: 1-7. I find it
> hard to believe that his views are simply naive, given his own experiences
> of the fickleness of authority (and note the previous verse <do not
> overcome evil with evil, but evil with good>). Is it possible that Paul
may
> be deliberately seeking to distance himself from claims of an
anti-imperial
> agenda - and if so, such a passage as Rom. 13:1-7 would be as good a way
of
> denying such accusations as any. I am not convinced that claims to deity
by
> Nero provides a background to this passage, which turns on the premise
that
> all authority is derived from God. In other words, it is a matter of
> subordination and authority. Rival claims to deity don't really come into
> view. Rather, more specific scenarios of <fear> and <taxation> are raised,
> and these should not be dismissed as just generalizations but very real
and
> specific concerns, closely related to how a group is identified and
> classified before the authorities.
>
> 5. The charge of SUPERSTITIO was coming into consideration by Nero's time
> (according to Suetonius, Nero 16:2 - <the Christians, a class of people
> practising a novel and threatening superstition>), which was often
> associated with a breach of custom or cultic activity. If the later
> understanding of Tacitus is to be followed, some hatred was developing
over
> the Christian movement in Rome for their <outrages> (FLAGITIA). Whereas
> Judaism was viewed essentially as an ancient religion, the Christians were
> viewed as a dangerous novelty. The socio-cultural tension was particularly
> acute for Roman converts. Were they to drop Roman customs and practices
and
> face the charge of un-Roman conduct? In such an environment of confusion
> and accusation, Paul's comments in regard to the compatibility of Roman
> civic order and authority with a Christian commitment strike me as a
> calculated apologia addressed to particular accusations rather than
general
> reflections.
>
> Apologies for such sketchy comments, but my main contention is that we
> should look to circumstances in Rome to aid our understanding of Romans
> 13:1-7, more so than developments in Asia Minor or even the particular
> conduct or aspirations of Nero.
>
> Tim Harris
> Flinders University
> South Australia
>
>
> ---
> 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