Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Rom. 13 not about civil government??

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sidney L. Davis, Jr." <sidneydavis AT verizon.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Rom. 13 not about civil government??
  • Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:43:49 -0400

The following from the Catholic Encyclopedia under "synagogue":

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14379b.htm
(1) Judicial. The "sons of the synagogue" were governed by a council called
bêth dîn, "house of justice"; or sunédrion "council" (transliterated ,
Sanhedrin); or boulé, "council". The members of this council were
twenty-three in larger towns, seven in smaller; and were called ’árchontes,
"rulers" (Matt., ix, 18, 23); Luke, viii, 41), or presbúteroi, "ancients"
(Luke, vii, 3). The "rulers of the synagogue" had it in their power to
punish by excommunication, scourging and death. (a) Excommunication from the
synagogal community was termed herem, , ’anáthema, (see ANATHEMA). Both the
Hebrew and Greek words mean that an object is "sacred" or "accursed" (cf.
Arabic hárîm, the harem, a precinct sacred to the women of a household or
the mosque of a community). (b) Scourging (, cf. Makkoth, III, 12; mastigón,
cf. Matt., x, 17; xxiii, 34; déro,, cf. Mark, xiii, 9; Acts, xxii, 19) was
thirty-nine stripes (Makkoth, III, 10; II Cor., xi, 24) laid on by the
"servant of the synagogue", hazzan, ‘uperétes, for minor offences. Three
elders made up a tribunal competent to inflict the penalty of scourging. It
is likely by this lesser tribunal that Our Lord refers: "Whosoever is angry
with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment", ’énochos ’éstai te
krísei (Matt., v, 22). (c) The death penalty was inflicted by the Sanhedrin
in full session of twenty-three elders (cf. Sanhedrin I, 4). To this penalty
or to that of excommunication should probably be referred Our Lord's words:
"And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council", ’énochos ’éstai to sunedrío (Matt., v, 22).

It would appear from this that as far as the Jewish community was concerned
their rulers did "bear the sword ".

Sidney Davis
Boston,MA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard W. Wilson" <rwwilson147 AT swbell.net>
To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>; <tiona AT comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Rom. 13 not about civil government??


> Hello all,
> Briefly, if someone doesn't mind, how does that Mark Nano argument go?
> And how do you, Jeff, say that it refers to synagogue rulers? It seems
> apparent to me (as it would have even prior to theological studies) that
> the reason no one else has so argued is that Rom. 13:4 speaks of a kind
> of sword weilding in which a synagogue ruler never engaged.
>
> 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in
> fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to
> administer retribution on the wrongdoer.
>
> Moreover, I don't know of situations where a synagogue would have been
> said to collect taxes or revenue.
>
> 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s
> servants devoted to governing.6 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to
> whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, , , ,
>
> Regards, Richard W. Wilson
>
> > -------------- Original messages --------------
> >
> > Message: 1 Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 From:
> > tiona AT comcast.net
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I spent the better part of a full year studying Romans without having
> > been predisposed to an opinion by a prior theological training. My
> > question is how anyone can read verses 13:3 and 13:4 as anything
> > other than Paul referring to interaction with the leaders of the
> > synogogues?
> >
> > Sincerely, Jeff
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >
> >> As far as I know:
> >>
> >> on 5/3/05 6:08 PM, billy lejeune at lejeune AT comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I am very intrigued by Mark Nanos's take on Romans 13. Other than
> >>> Nanos, are there any treatments of 13 arguing that Paul has
> >>> something other than civil government in mind?
> >>
> >> No. Some suggest lower level administrators. I discuss the only
> >> options of which I was aware, and no one has made me aware of
> >> others since publication (Mystery of Romans was published in Jan. 9
> >> years ago, hard to believe how quickly time passes).
>
> >>> And was Mark the first to suggest this?
> >>
> >> As far as I knew, and know.
>
> >>
> >> Take care, Mark
>
> --
> Richard W. Wilson, St. Louis, MO 63119
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul

Attachment: 14379b07.gif
Description: GIF image

Attachment: 14379b08.gif
Description: GIF image

Attachment: 14379b09.gif
Description: GIF image



  • Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Rom. 13 not about civil government??, Sidney L. Davis, Jr., 06/05/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page