If rulers that have been appointed by God are not a terror to good conduct but to bad, the logical contrapositive is that anything that is a terror to good conduct is not a legitimate ruler appointed by God.
Well that sounds reasonable at first, though a little odd, since it's not exactly clear why you should have to go to such pains in telling people to obey good rulers (whereas they might need persuading to obey bad ones on the "head down" principle, dealt with elsewhere.)
One presumes that the position Paul is arguing against is something like, the Roman authorities in general are a bunch of pagans; their laws are not ordained by God; therefore, we need not obey them.
Does one? I mean, do we have any other indication that this presumed position is a real one that needs arguing against? (I don't know that it isn't; it sounds plausible, but I'd be interested if you happen know of any supporting passages.)
But then go back to the first sentence of the passage:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
He doesn't make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate rulers; in fact he almost seems to be determined to exclude the option you're trying open up, Dafyd. If you want to go the contrapositive route on this one, I think you'd have to conclude that anything that is a terror to good conduct (*cough* Nero *cough*) isn't an authority at all. In other words, there are no bad authorities because anything bad isn't really an authority.
Let's consider a statement.
The President of the USA preserves, protects, and defends the Constitution of the United States.
That can mean two things. One possible meaning is that the current President actually does that. Another possible meaning is that the President is supposed to do that, and that it is one of the functions of the office, regardless of whether or not the current President does anything of the sort. A children's book describing the US Constitution to somebody would mean the sentence in the second sense. The second sense is not a descriptive sense, but a normative sense.
Now, I think Paul is putting forward a normative sense justification for obeying laws made and administered by pagans. For the interpretation to work, he has to also assume that the authorities that his addresses come into contact with are doing their jobs with reasonable integrity. (I don't know the Greek, but I think 'governing authorities' and 'rulers' here primarily means the judges and magistrates that an ordinary citizen might come into day-to-day contact with, rather than the Emperor.) But I don't think he need be taken to be saying that all governing authorities everywhere are executing those functions, or that all laws everywhere are just, or so on. He's not considering those kinds of questions. Nor is he addressing whether there is ever any justification for overthrowing a government, or whether one should disobey a law or ruler that is not exercising the functions put forward. Again, he's not addressing that question. He is simply putting forward an argument that government by non-Christians should not be thought to lack authority on the grounds that they're not Christians.
I think I understand your interpretation, Dafyd, and it seems a reasonable enough thing for Paul to say (assuming arguendo that the Roman church has a problem with Christians refusing to obey non-Christians.) But it still seems to me that he goes much, much farther than that; to my ear, it's a long way from something like "you should obey reasonable authorities even if they're not Christian" to "For there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement."
Suppose that Paul does mean to make the normative argument you propose; he just wants to convince rebellious Christians that non-Christian rulers can be just and that it's proper to obey them. But how does he do that? By saying that all authorities are appointed by God! He may not be addressing questions about unjust rulers or whether it could ever be permissible to disobey one - but he also better hope nobody ever asks him those questions, because it looks like he'd have a hard time rowing this one back.
I wonder if the problem is perhaps that he and early Christians (and maybe other people of the time) don't really have a conception of legitimate rule that isn't in some sense divinely endorsed. If that were true, his choices would be to say either that the authorities are appointed by God (as he does) or that they simply rule by brute force, without legitimacy. The second option seems to allow for a pragmatic "keep your head down" message, but simply bowing before a corrupt ruler is hardly an appropriate course for a people who are taught of Peter's shame in denying Christ.
I wonder if the problem is perhaps that he and early Christians (and maybe other people of the time) don't really have a conception of legitimate rule that isn't in some sense divinely endorsed.
That is very helpful. There is of course something of that sense in the OT, where God is pictured as using foreign nations to punish Israel for "doing evil in the sight of the Lord" i.e. covenant breaking. And of course the idea persisted in the conception of the divine right of kings.
Yes, our concept of legitimate government has changed. In the democracies, it is "freely and fairly elected". Although we may accept in some sense the legitimacy of government systems established more by "might is right" means, our sense of legitimacy is more influenced by ideas of government of the people for the people by the people. Which may be one the reasons why these texts jar.
One presumes that the position Paul is arguing against is something like, the Roman authorities in general are a bunch of pagans; their laws are not ordained by God; therefore, we need not obey them.
Does one? I mean, do we have any other indication that this presumed position is a real one that needs arguing against? (I don't know that it isn't; it sounds plausible, but I'd be interested if you happen know of any supporting passages.)
I think I agree that Paul and other Jews and probably everyone else has some trouble imagining a form of political legitimacy that isn't in some sort supernaturally sanctioned. There are a few people around who don't bring the supernatural into it: Epicureans, for example, though to what extent Epicureans had theories of political legitimacy I don't know.
We have no direct evidence outside Paul's letters of the people he was arguing with.
AIUI that only the Jewish state was actually legitimate is I think found in Jewish anti-Roman movements at the time. That only a theocracy will do is a political position that has cropped up among monotheists throughout the centuries. We know Paul argues at some points in his letters against antinomians, and it's no stretch to suppose that antinomians about morality would also be antinomians about law. The position that God puts me above human laws is another one that has cropped up throughout the centuries.
I can't think of a position beyond, 'God puts me above human laws', or, 'Laws by non-theocracies have no authority', that Paul is likely to be arguing against here. There are people with a practical prospect of organising a revolution around in Judaea, but I don't think it's likely that there are many among the Christians in Rome.
Suppose that Paul does mean to make the normative argument you propose; he just wants to convince rebellious Christians that non-Christian rulers can be just and that it's proper to obey them. But how does he do that? By saying that all authorities are appointed by God! He may not be addressing questions about unjust rulers or whether it could ever be permissible to disobey one - but he also better hope nobody ever asks him those questions, because it looks like he'd have a hard time rowing this one back.
Maybe. It seems a priori unlikely that Paul doesn't think at least some pagan rulers are thorougly immoral. I think the argument works by making a distinction between person and office or function, and saying that Paul is talking about the function. (I think that's equivalent to the distinction I made earlier between the descriptive statement and the normative statement.)
Yes, I think the distinction between respect for office and respect for office holder has something to say.
If there is 'bad emperor' stuff anywhere in the NT it is probably found allegorically in Revelation. But in Paul's letter to Philemon and also in 1 Peter 2 there is a clear awareness that Masters can behave badly towards slaves. The advice to slaves appears to be that if that happens it is a form of
sharing in the unjust suffering of Jesus.
As others have correctly observed, the views of both OT and NT authors do not move very far towards the modern understanding that enslaving people is intrinsically evil. Neither slave nor free in Galatians 3 is as good as it gets. But there are certainly indicators that earthly authority carries with it a proper responsibility to behave well in the exercise of authority. You don't get anything of that from the text of Romans 13.
I once knew a headteacher who used Christianity as a form of crowd control: God had 'put him in his post,' and since he prayed - and I'm sure he did so quite sincerely - about every decision he took, it followed naturally that to disagree with him about anything was to set oneself up in opposition to God.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the word Paul used for 'Authorities', he applied to both earthy secular powers and also to heavenly spiritual 'powers', no distiction in the language used.
This might lead to the observation that perhaps Paul was not actually insinuating that because any 'power' was originally instituted by God, they are necessarily still 'doing God's will'. The 'powers' that Paul said believers were struggling against were certainly not 'doing God's will' but were considered by Paul to have been instituted originally by God, who is all in all and in overall control over everything. Any 'power' whether 'doing God's will', 'or opposing it', does so with the express permission of God. Otherwise God would immediately put a stop to the powers that 'oppose Him', and experience tells us that God obviously does not immediately do so. We seem to have a part to play in reforming 'powers' that are clearly not doing God's will.
It would seem that living the Christian Life was part of that pressure for reform, rather than revolution and outright armed struggle against oppression.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the word Paul used for 'Authorities', he applied to both earthy secular powers and also to heavenly spiritual 'powers', no distiction in the language used.
This might lead to the observation that perhaps Paul was not actually insinuating that because any 'power' was originally instituted by God, they are necessarily still 'doing God's will'.
He's not "insinuating" it, he's declaring it quite clearly:
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good.
He doesn't say they shouldn't be a terror to good conduct, or that they wouldn't be if they were doing God's will as they ought, he says they 'are not'.
The 'powers' that Paul said believers were struggling against were certainly not 'doing God's will' but were considered by Paul to have been instituted originally by God, who is all in all and in overall control over everything. Any 'power' whether 'doing God's will', 'or opposing it', does so with the express permission of God. Otherwise God would immediately put a stop to the powers that 'oppose Him', and experience tells us that God obviously does not immediately do so.
This doesn't make any sense at all to me. The world is full of terrible things that God doesn't immediately put a stop to - that's hardly a reason to conclude that they're happening with the express permission of God.
When and how did God express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things, in your view?
He doesn't say they shouldn't be a terror to good conduct, or that they wouldn't be if they were doing God's will as they ought, he says they 'are not'.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the word Paul used for 'Authorities', he applied to both earthy secular powers and also to heavenly spiritual 'powers', no distiction in the language used.
This might lead to the observation that perhaps Paul was not actually insinuating that because any 'power' was originally instituted by God, they are necessarily still 'doing God's will'.
He's not "insinuating" it, he's declaring it quite clearly:
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good.
He doesn't say they shouldn't be a terror to good conduct, or that they wouldn't be if they were doing God's will as they ought, he says they 'are not'.
The 'powers' that Paul said believers were struggling against were certainly not 'doing God's will' but were considered by Paul to have been instituted originally by God, who is all in all and in overall control over everything. Any 'power' whether 'doing God's will', 'or opposing it', does so with the express permission of God. Otherwise God would immediately put a stop to the powers that 'oppose Him', and experience tells us that God obviously does not immediately do so.
This doesn't make any sense at all to me. The world is full of terrible things that God doesn't immediately put a stop to - that's hardly a reason to conclude that they're happening with the express permission of God.
When and how did God express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things, in your view?
Well if God does not express his permission he certainly does not express his displeasure, does he.
He seems to leave it all up to us to do something about injustice if anything needs to be done. Otherwise despotic dictators would all live short and painful lives and cancer suffering children would all be cured.
I thnk it's worth remembering that for most inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the 'authorities' would have been the duumvirate that headed a typical elected Town Council, and possibly a local magistrate dispensing justice from his currule chair in the town square, a literal 'forum' where everyone could see what was going on. I suspect that this daily reality is what Paul is thinking of.
Nero and the various other emperors were a very long way off, and hardly impinged on local life at all, to the extent that when Nero cancelled the 0.5 percent sales tax on auctioned goods, the news had to be spread far and wide by means of coinage bearing the legend RCC ('The Remission of the Two Hundredth').
Andras, even though Paul was writing to Rome which was the centre of the empire, I think you may be onto something there.
There were also virtually now news media in the modern sense in the ancient world. So most people, most of the time, must have had no sense whatsoever of any bigger picture such as now conveyed by historians of that era.
I thnk it's worth remembering that for most inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the 'authorities' would have been the duumvirate that headed a typical elected Town Council, and possibly a local magistrate dispensing justice from his currule chair in the town square, a literal 'forum' where everyone could see what was going on. I suspect that this daily reality is what Paul is thinking of.
You think that when he wrote of "God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" he was thinking of the head of the local town council?
You think that when he wrote of "God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" he was thinking of the head of the local town council?
I think so. It seems to me that his target audience are much more likely to come into contact with the the local magistrate and the heads of the local town council than with the Emperor.
(And again, I think Paul's talking about the normative roles and functions, rather than the individuals filling them.)
[DaveW] : This doesn't make any sense at all to me. The world is full of terrible things that God doesn't immediately put a stop to - that's hardly a reason to conclude that they're happening with the express permission of God.
When and how did God express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things, in your view?
As I explained earlier, God did not "Express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things". And it has never been my view that God has put that into scripture to make the point irrefutably. Neither is it my view that St Paul ever expressed it either.
This thread is evidence of the fact that there are passages in the Bible that are best understood by a generous squirting of shaving foam and judicious use of Occam's Razor.
The actual meaning of the passage is that it is a load of bollocks, because it was written by someone nowhere near as inspired as St Paul, who obviously wants to convince us the Roman Soldier is an absolutely unquestionable authority, ordained by the god's, armed to enforce 'The Roman Law' itself an authority ordained by God. As many obviously did, and a few conveniently still do, even in the USA or UK and almost every other place. Any questions about aberrant conduct of 'authority' and the ranks close, and they 'can do no wrong', God's 'little good boys'. How dare you question 'authority'?
Inquiry into Hillsbourough? Nahh, we don't need anyone snooping into all that. "The fans were all drunk and the authority that was overseeing it was ordained by God, so let that be an end to it".
Bollocks! The passage was probably inserted by a not very intelligent, gladius swinging, Roman flatfoot after a bad day at work.
Come here Mr Occam and lend me your razor, I am just fed up with silly and futile theodicean explanations attempting to bring rational meaning to an irrationally corrupted text.
[DaveW] : This doesn't make any sense at all to me. The world is full of terrible things that God doesn't immediately put a stop to - that's hardly a reason to conclude that they're happening with the express permission of God.
When and how did God express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things, in your view?
As I explained earlier, God did not "Express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things".
Any 'power' whether 'doing God's will', 'or opposing it', does so with the express permission of God.
and then when I posed the question you quote, you replied
Well if God does not express his permission he certainly does not express his displeasure, does he.
which is at best a non sequitur.
Your new suggestion basically amounts to interpolation, which has apparently received some support in the literature. (Though the idea that it was inserted by a common Roman soldier probably moves your view closer to the group containing "it was sarcasm" and "spies!".)
[DaveW] : Your new suggestion basically amounts to interpolation, which has apparently received some support in the literature. (Though the idea that it was inserted by a common Roman soldier probably moves your view closer to the group containing "it was sarcasm" and "spies!".)
It does not just basically amount to it. I am convinced it isinterpolation and one of the reasons for my believing that, is that it is bollocks.
The rest of what I said that you picked up on, I said to join in the game of "Let's try and make some sense of this rubbish because we just can't possibly accept that it is not "The Literally Inspired Word of God", that everyone seems to playing here.
I'm broadly in agreement with Barnabus62's approach that Romans 13 is offering advice in a particular context rather than constructing a systematic political philosophy.
As I understand it relations between Jews and the Roman authorities were tense, and in the time of Claudius an imperial edict had expelled thousands of Jews from Rome who were not citizens of the City. Paul was concerned that tensions between Jews and Christians might result in similar action being taken against both communities at the time of his letter. A policy of non-confrontation with the Empire, as opposed to the increasingly rebellious posture of the Jews, was to be justified by the events of AD 70.
It was also the case, of course, that Paul on numerous occasions had exploited his Roman citizenship in the course of his ministry, and the gospel's spread greatly benefitted from a Roman peace that had protected and promoted the peaceful commerce of ideas as well as trade.
We might also reflect that the injunction to obey the Emperor, whose authority derives from God, is a corrective to the view that only Christian rulers are to be considered politically legitimate. It detaches Christianity from theocratic approaches to government.
I would suggest that our opposition to tyranny and what we consider unjust laws should not blind us to the fact that anarchy is rarely in the interests of most people, especially the weak. That is why the rule of law , however deficient the laws may be, is usually preferable to each being his/her own judge, and might be considered by Christians to be of God. The morally compromised mayor might be preferable to the High Plains Drifter.
I make these remarks as one uncomfortable with Paul's rather bald remarks in Romans 13, and their obvious failure to address the problem of egregious tyrannical rule and how unjust laws are to be addressed.
[DaveW] : Your new suggestion basically amounts to interpolation, which has apparently received some support in the literature. (Though the idea that it was inserted by a common Roman soldier probably moves your view closer to the group containing "it was sarcasm" and "spies!".)
It does not just basically amount to it. I am convinced it isinterpolation and one of the reasons for my believing that, is that it is bollocks.
Do you have any other reasons? I would have thought all fallible humans were quite capable of writing bollocks; if Paul is an exception, is this quality of divine origin? If so, how unfortunate that God didn't see fit to exercise similar protective care with the record of what he wrote.
The rest of what I said that you picked up on, I said to join in the game of "Let's try and make some sense of this rubbish because we just can't possibly accept that it is not "The Literally Inspired Word of God", that everyone seems to playing here.
Well that may seem to be a more flattering explanation than that you simply wrote bollocks. (Although I think you're missing a bet by not claiming interpolation.)
Roll on Occam with your razor!
I don't see why the explanation "Paul wrote [what RdrEmCofE happens to think is] bollocks" is less parsimonious than "It was inserted by a Roman footsoldier."
I think it would have helped if Paul had been told when dashing out his letters that he was composing inerrant scripture, and to make sure that any current epistle was compatible with those that had gone before.
The big error people make in interpreting Romans 13 is to think that it says you must 'obey' the authorities. It doesn't. It uses a different Greek word, and indeed then uses in a connected way several other words related to that different word. It also uses a different Greek word when it talks of resisting/opposing God rather than resisting/opposing the authorities.
Everyone must submit (υποτασσω) himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established (τασσω)by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels (αντιτασσομαι) against the authority is rebelling (ανθιστημι) against what God has instituted (διαταγη, related to διατασσω), and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit (υποτασσω) to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
For 'obey' there are other words, particularly 'πειθω' and 'πειθαρχεω', the latter being apparently specifically about obeying higher authorities.
'πειθαρχεω' is the word used in another relevant text, Acts 5; 29 where Peter tells the Jewish authorities that
“We must obey God rather than men!”
Acts 5:29 (NIV)
And as I see it, Peter saw his refusal to 'obey' the authorities there as completely compatible with his own advice in I Peter 2; 13
Submit ( υποτασσω ) yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right
1 Peter 2:13-14 (NIV)
So how do you do 'being subject to' the authorities without necessarily 'obeying' them? You do it like Peter and Paul, who when they could not obey the authorities were nevertheless willing to accept the punishment the authorities inflicted for their disobedience – that is, they accepted martyrdom.
What they did not do was 'resist/αντιτασσομαι', a word which carries implications of a military response, 'setting yourself in array against'. They understood that the authorities were 'ordained' by God ('διαταγη' from 'διατασσω') and that they should not oppose that divine ordination – for which opposition the different word 'ανθιστημι' is used.
For what it's worth, I once tried for a sermon to give the flavour of Paul's words by a paraphrase in which the 'tasso' related words were rendered by English words with the '-ject' root. It's not a perfect translation, but it gives an impression not available in ordinary English of how Greek-speakers might see the words related.
“Everybody must be subject to the state authorities, because there is no authority except under God, and those that do exist are part of God’s project. Whoever objects with violence to the existing authority opposes that divine project, and by opposing brings divine judgement upon himself.”
And yes, it applies to whatever government, including in Paul's day the likes of Nero. God's 'ordination' in this case means something like his 'providential arrangement', not necessarily his full approval. In effect, he doesn't approve of a Nero – but he has permitted Nero for the time being as the appropriate government to achieve, in various ways, his overall purposes for those Nero rules. (and before screaming objection to that, bear in mind that unless you think you're wonderfully perfect, God is pretty certainly also permitting you a lot of things/deeds that he doesn't approve of – you want him to clobber Nero, you're basically asking for your own misconduct to be clobbered too).
Therefore Christians must be 'subject to' Nero but not necessarily 'obey' Nero. If they find it necessary to disobey, they will not start a military opposition revolution, they will accept martyrdom.
I think that makes the major point. On one other point, sketchily....
As I see it, the 'disconnect' between Romans 13; 1-7 and its surroundings is real, but it's not because it's a later addition/interpolation by 'not-Paul'. More a case that the whole of Romans is a bit of a patchwork, as if Paul were saying to his scribe “Now where did we put that sermon on the human condition”, or “Pass me those notes on the anomaly of Jewish rejection of Jesus” and assembling these into a manual of basic Christian ideas.
In the case of Romans 13; 1-7 there is a sense in which it is indeed 'not-Paul'; as witnessed by Peter's similar phrasing in his epistle, it is part of a common Christian approach to these issues,. It doesn't feel like Paul because it isn't his own personal words, he's quoting from this common store of ideas; but nevertheless it's Paul who put it there and he still very much agrees with the point made.
I also think that we have tended to isolate Romans 13; 1-7 as the 'go-to' text on this topic; we have tended to isolate it from the surrounding teaching in Romans, especially chapter 12. And we have neglected I Peter which if anything has more to say both on 'church and state' and 'church and world'.
Therefore Christians must be 'subject to' Nero but not necessarily 'obey' Nero. If they find it necessary to disobey, they will not start a military opposition revolution, they will accept martyrdom.
Martyrdom? Why should that even be an issue? Surely if they do what is right he will commend them?
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The trouble, Dave W, is that there are times, as Peter recognised in that statement about obeying God rather than man, when 'doing right' and 'obeying the one in (human) authority' will come into conflict. These should be rare cases, and should not be about general good and evil but about being Christian and the authorities refusing to recognise that as right. But they may exceptionally happen, as when Peter and his colleagues were forbidden to preach.
Rebelling against the authorities in a warlike way is wrong - even God will oppose you; obeying God rather than man may give you difficulties with the authorities - but this is a case where followers of a risen-from-death Jesus have nothing to fear.
As a general rule if you are doing right, the authorities will commend you. The occasions they may not are occasions when they are themselves doing wrong to begin with.
The key point to grasp here is this difference between 'obeying' the authorities - doing evil when they command it - and being 'subject to' the authorities even when unable to simply obey. I don't think there are many takers on the ship for the 'simply obey the authorities' line - wasn't it a misuse of the text in that way in the US which gave rise to this thread? Be clear that simple obedience is not required and it puts a different perspective on the surrounding issues....
I was thinking about ISIS as this passage was read in church. Bonhoeffer fits Steve's paradigm... but not Paul's (as laid out by Dave W above) it seems.
Well Dave W is just quoting Paul, of course; but among other things, he's limiting his quoting. Romans 12 clearly envisages the possibility of persecution so even within Romans Paul isn't being quite as absolute, I would suggest, as Dave W is implying.
Christianity's problems with Rome arose from an increasing insistence on enforcing religious conformity and particularly worship of emperors as gods. Whereas a cult of one particular ethnic group of subjects (eg, the Jews) can be given a pass on that to some extent, Christians could be, well, the guy next door. It was a bit like the American 'Reds under the bed' scares in the 1950s. And one thing Paul is saying here is that to ride out this situation, Christians must not be a threat of rebellion, they must be good citizens wherever they can, only opposing where they really must.
RdrEmCofE, your comment about interpolation raises a point that has been going through my mind since this thread opened. But I don't have the learning - either of Greek or more general biblical interpretation - to be able to comment. What leads you to the conclusion apart from a dislike of the teaching?
[Dave W] :Do you have any other reasons? I would have thought all fallible humans were quite capable of writing bollocks; if Paul is an exception, is this quality of divine origin? If so, how unfortunate that God didn't see fit to exercise similar protective care with the record of what he wrote.
Paul didn't write it so I don't see that God needed to correct him. Whoever did write it, was doing exactly the kind of thing that John of Revelation was getting fed up with, so decided to curse the sods who he well knew were inclined, at that time, to do it.
: Well that may seem to be a more flattering explanation than that you simply wrote bollocks. (Although I think you're missing a bet by not claiming interpolation.).
I had made my position clear early on in the thread. "Possible interpolation, not Paul".
I don't see why the explanation "Paul wrote [what RdrEmCofE happens to think is] bollocks" is less parsimonious than "It was inserted by a Roman footsoldier."
I was not being 'frugal' when expressing my personal opinion that Rom.13:1-6 is bollocks and was probably written by a Roman flatfoot after a particularly difficult day on the beat. I was being facetious. I am convinced it does not come from any legitimate apostolic authority. [Though, were I a translator I would letter it and put it in a footnote that blithely following this advice as if from God himself, could seriously endanger the moral health of a whole nation, even the world.]
Quite a lot of other people find it to be very sloppy theology. Paul could presumably make mistakes, but he never ever anywhere else eulogises Roman authority in quite as overt a way as Rom.13:1-6. Remove it and what is left are almost certainly the original words of Paul: You know, the one who was always being thrown into Roman jails for preaching the gospel and disturbing the peace and was eventually beheaded by "Roman Justice".
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [?] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
Which basically says the same thing as Rom.13:1-6, but without the sycophantic justification of Roman might and draconian control.
So far I consider Steve Langton's to be the onlyconvincing argument so far for Rom.13:1-6 actually being Paul. And even of that I have my reservations.
[Dave W] :Do you have any other reasons? I would have thought all fallible humans were quite capable of writing bollocks; if Paul is an exception, is this quality of divine origin? If so, how unfortunate that God didn't see fit to exercise similar protective care with the record of what he wrote.
Paul didn't write it so I don't see that God needed to correct him.
Apparently he doesn't see a need to correct anything, since here we are with Romans 13:1-7 in everybody's bible.
: Well that may seem to be a more flattering explanation than that you simply wrote bollocks. (Although I think you're missing a bet by not claiming interpolation.).
I had made my position clear early on in the thread. "Possible interpolation, not Paul".
My view is that this passage is saying we should be subject to government authority when it acts in submission to God's authority.
So do I, which is probably why it is there in the Bible, but if you read it carefully what we seem to want it to say, is not what it actually says.
What it actually implies is "Don't oppose The Nazis, Phol Pott or Stalin, because they are all good people keeping the lid on trouble in the world, for God.
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Mudfrog My view is that this passage is saying we should be subject to government authority when it acts in submission to God's authority.
Isn't that exactly what the passage is not saying, except insofar as all political authorities are sanctioned by God: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
What, Mudfrog, is your attitude to laws which you consider not sanctioned by God? Do you disobey them? Many Christians (and others) in democracies regard their governments as working against the righteous will of God but put up with them and do not challenge their legitimacy.
Mudfrog My view is that this passage is saying we should be subject to government authority when it acts in submission to God's authority.
Isn't that exactly what the passage is not saying, except insofar as all political authorities are sanctioned by God: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
What, Mudfrog, is your attitude to laws which you consider not sanctioned by God? Do you disobey them? Many Christians (and others) in democracies regard their governments as working against the righteous will of God but put up with them and do not challenge their legitimacy.
There is the alternative though of simply not obediently carrying out the edicts of the authorities. For instance, under Nazi rule, it was treason to harbour Jews. Many did though and chose to risk death themselves rather than carry out Nazi policies. Opposing such regimes openly can get you quickly 'disappeared'.
I find it very difficult to believe Paul was unaware of the propensity for absolute power to corrupt absolutely and even suggest that corrupt power is actually instituted by God and we have therefore 'nothing to fear from it'.
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
At least, @RdrEmCofE is not the only one to think this. A theologian who believes this whom I see cited a couple of times is James Kallas¹, but I don't have access to this article.
¹Kallas, J. "Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation" New Testament Studies, 11 (1965), 365-66
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croasian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croatian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
I suspect what's being asked for is some more persuasive argument either from the text or the early manuscript history than:-
a. This doesn't fit with my picture of the rest of what Paul wrote and what I think he stands for. So he can't have said it. Or
b. I don't like what this says. So I'd like to find an argument that allows me to claim he didn't say it.
I think we have to assume that Paul wrote it, and then work out what he meant, what the implications are etc. unless there are really persuasive objective reasons for thinking otherwise.
Meanwhile thank you @Steve Langton. We don't always agree on other things, and I think my tag might not have worked, but I think your exegesis here is clear, well written and pretty persuasive.
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croatian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
I suspect what's being asked for is some more persuasive argument either from the text or the early manuscript history than:-
a. This doesn't fit with my picture of the rest of what Paul wrote and what I think he stands for. So he can't have said it. Or
b. I don't like what this says. So I'd like to find an argument that allows me to claim he didn't say it.
I think we have to assume that Paul wrote it, and then work out what he meant, what the implications are etc. unless there are really persuasive objective reasons for thinking otherwise.
Meanwhile thank you @Steve Langton. We don't always agree on other things, but I think your exegesis here is clear, well written and pretty persuasive.
I think it's a bit late in time now to expect much conclusive evidence to turn up, proving beyond doubt that some interpolating arsehole has adulterated Paul's text with irrational graffiti of his own.
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croasian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
Yes, only 6 - but is the language in much the same vocabulary that paul uses, what about the syntax, the grammatical complexity and so forth. As I said a page or so ago, I don't have any Greek and only very, very limited Biblical scholarship and mine was a genuine request. In other words, what Enoch says.
An example (which is a dead horse theme so I will not defend it here) is same sex marriage.
The law in the UK declares it to be legal. I d not agree. Many thousands disagree and indeed, the denomination to which I belong has made it clear in its very recent revision of its ceremonies book that it stands by the New Testament standard of marriage that is one man and one woman for life.
That puts me and my church at odds with this government.
If this government or any future government tried to force us to conduct SSMs it would have a fight because we believe that the government has overstepped the authority given to it by God.
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croasian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
Yes, only 6 - but is the language in much the same vocabulary that Paul uses, what about the syntax, the grammatical complexity and so forth. As I said a page or so ago, I don't have any Greek and only very, very limited Biblical scholarship and mine was a genuine request. In other words, what Enoch says.
I understand and appreciate your position. It is much like my own. Did Paul have copyright on his writing style to the degree that his hand can clearly be differentiated in as few as 6 verses? Depends upon which 6 verses you take I suppose. He did use certain words that others didn't, even coined one or two which were unique, not only to himself but which appear nowhere else in Greek literature. That understandably makes it difficult to understand exactly what he meant by them. We can only rely on context to guess at it. ('Homosexual' being one of the words that translators hang on a Pauline Composite word we simply do not know the meaning of).
The six verses in question, as far as I know, do not contain any of those distinctively Pauline words. The passage is rather dull and uninspiring anyway, but so were quite a few undisputed Pauline ones too. Paul, like any other author was sometimes more inspired than at other times. Not all his prose reaches the sublime heights of 1 Cor.13.
Mudfrog If this government or any future government tried to force us to conduct SSMs it would have a fight because we believe that the government has overstepped the authority given to it by God.
I'm sure you would, Mudfrog, but you could not advance Romans 13 in support, rather the reverse.
I'm sating that we should only be subject to the governing bodies if they are in accordance with the authority they have been given by God. There is no point in saying that God says one thing from his position of authority but then we have to obey the government when it changes God's decrees. God hasn't given any Government an authority to change what God has said.
1) It is my understanding that for literary analysis of things like interpolation you need quite a lot of text for comparison. We only just have enough of Paul to even consider such analysis in general. With a text where it is likely that he is basing his words on ideas of the wider church, as if he were quoting a creed, establishing Paul or an interpolator is going to be effectively impossible.
2) If Mudfrog means to have a fight with the government over SSM in a physical way, like the Puritans fighting King Charles in the ECW, then I'd agree with Kwesi that Romans 13 would be against him! But so long as he simply means that they won't obey the demand that they practice SSM themselves or perform it for others, then that seems to fit Romans 13 well. They will, I hope, be subject to the government both in accepting the right of non-Christians to do SSM if they must, and in accepting penalties from the government for their refusal to comply.
Steve Langton But so long as he simply means that they won't obey the demand that they practice SSM themselves or perform it for others, then that seems to fit Romans 13 well.
I'm sating that we should only be subject to the governing bodies if they are in accordance with the authority they have been given by God. There is no point in saying that God says one thing from his position of authority but then we have to obey the government when it changes God's decrees. God hasn't given any Government an authority to change what God has said.
I love it when people who are all about Bible Authority fumble around a text they don't like.
I'm sating that we should only be subject to the governing bodies if they are in accordance with the authority they have been given by God. There is no point in saying that God says one thing from his position of authority but then we have to obey the government when it changes God's decrees. God hasn't given any Government an authority to change what God has said.
I love it when people who are all about Bible Authority fumble around a text they don't like.
I like it even more when they are people that regard it as 'The Inerrant and Authoritative Word of God', that says something they don't like.
Mudfrog opines that
"God hasn't given any Government an authority to change what God has said."
and then cites SSM as 'going against God's Word'.
Well OK no one should be made to preside over a ceremony, marriage or otherwise. But what if Mudfrog had Jews hiding in his cellar, or attic, in 1942's Holland?
The Nazi Occupation is only expecting to be informed of the truth. They are not 'changing anything God has said', I don't remember a text saying "Thou shalt not inform the Nazis or lie to them". What does Mudfrog do then? At least Steve Langton would be willing to be disobedient of an immoral edict from the state, even though he believes his inerrant Bible tells him "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." and even goes further informing him "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." making it perfectly clear that informing on the Jewish people in his cellar is a good thing, not bad, BECAUSE it is a command issued by a God instituted authority, "who is God's servant for your good".
Come on Mudfrog. God's servant for your good is demanding you tell them the truth about the persons hiding in your attic or cellar. What do you do then?
The argument about the position if government were to require Mudfrog to perform a SS marriage would not be about Rom 13 but about rendering unto Caesar and conflicting arguments about what is in Caesar's jurisdiction and what in God's.
Comments
Suppose that Paul does mean to make the normative argument you propose; he just wants to convince rebellious Christians that non-Christian rulers can be just and that it's proper to obey them. But how does he do that? By saying that all authorities are appointed by God! He may not be addressing questions about unjust rulers or whether it could ever be permissible to disobey one - but he also better hope nobody ever asks him those questions, because it looks like he'd have a hard time rowing this one back.
I wonder if the problem is perhaps that he and early Christians (and maybe other people of the time) don't really have a conception of legitimate rule that isn't in some sense divinely endorsed. If that were true, his choices would be to say either that the authorities are appointed by God (as he does) or that they simply rule by brute force, without legitimacy. The second option seems to allow for a pragmatic "keep your head down" message, but simply bowing before a corrupt ruler is hardly an appropriate course for a people who are taught of Peter's shame in denying Christ.
Yes, our concept of legitimate government has changed. In the democracies, it is "freely and fairly elected". Although we may accept in some sense the legitimacy of government systems established more by "might is right" means, our sense of legitimacy is more influenced by ideas of government of the people for the people by the people. Which may be one the reasons why these texts jar.
We have no direct evidence outside Paul's letters of the people he was arguing with.
AIUI that only the Jewish state was actually legitimate is I think found in Jewish anti-Roman movements at the time. That only a theocracy will do is a political position that has cropped up among monotheists throughout the centuries. We know Paul argues at some points in his letters against antinomians, and it's no stretch to suppose that antinomians about morality would also be antinomians about law. The position that God puts me above human laws is another one that has cropped up throughout the centuries.
I can't think of a position beyond, 'God puts me above human laws', or, 'Laws by non-theocracies have no authority', that Paul is likely to be arguing against here. There are people with a practical prospect of organising a revolution around in Judaea, but I don't think it's likely that there are many among the Christians in Rome.
Maybe. It seems a priori unlikely that Paul doesn't think at least some pagan rulers are thorougly immoral. I think the argument works by making a distinction between person and office or function, and saying that Paul is talking about the function. (I think that's equivalent to the distinction I made earlier between the descriptive statement and the normative statement.)
If there is 'bad emperor' stuff anywhere in the NT it is probably found allegorically in Revelation. But in Paul's letter to Philemon and also in 1 Peter 2 there is a clear awareness that Masters can behave badly towards slaves. The advice to slaves appears to be that if that happens it is a form of
sharing in the unjust suffering of Jesus.
As others have correctly observed, the views of both OT and NT authors do not move very far towards the modern understanding that enslaving people is intrinsically evil. Neither slave nor free in Galatians 3 is as good as it gets. But there are certainly indicators that earthly authority carries with it a proper responsibility to behave well in the exercise of authority. You don't get anything of that from the text of Romans 13.
Same drink, smaller bottle!
This might lead to the observation that perhaps Paul was not actually insinuating that because any 'power' was originally instituted by God, they are necessarily still 'doing God's will'. The 'powers' that Paul said believers were struggling against were certainly not 'doing God's will' but were considered by Paul to have been instituted originally by God, who is all in all and in overall control over everything. Any 'power' whether 'doing God's will', 'or opposing it', does so with the express permission of God. Otherwise God would immediately put a stop to the powers that 'oppose Him', and experience tells us that God obviously does not immediately do so. We seem to have a part to play in reforming 'powers' that are clearly not doing God's will.
It would seem that living the Christian Life was part of that pressure for reform, rather than revolution and outright armed struggle against oppression.
When and how did God express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things, in your view?
And he's flat-out wrong.
Well if God does not express his permission he certainly does not express his displeasure, does he.
He seems to leave it all up to us to do something about injustice if anything needs to be done. Otherwise despotic dictators would all live short and painful lives and cancer suffering children would all be cured.
Nero and the various other emperors were a very long way off, and hardly impinged on local life at all, to the extent that when Nero cancelled the 0.5 percent sales tax on auctioned goods, the news had to be spread far and wide by means of coinage bearing the legend RCC ('The Remission of the Two Hundredth').
There were also virtually now news media in the modern sense in the ancient world. So most people, most of the time, must have had no sense whatsoever of any bigger picture such as now conveyed by historians of that era.
(And again, I think Paul's talking about the normative roles and functions, rather than the individuals filling them.)
As I explained earlier, God did not "Express his permission for bad rulers to do terrible things". And it has never been my view that God has put that into scripture to make the point irrefutably. Neither is it my view that St Paul ever expressed it either.
This thread is evidence of the fact that there are passages in the Bible that are best understood by a generous squirting of shaving foam and judicious use of Occam's Razor.
The actual meaning of the passage is that it is a load of bollocks, because it was written by someone nowhere near as inspired as St Paul, who obviously wants to convince us the Roman Soldier is an absolutely unquestionable authority, ordained by the god's, armed to enforce 'The Roman Law' itself an authority ordained by God. As many obviously did, and a few conveniently still do, even in the USA or UK and almost every other place. Any questions about aberrant conduct of 'authority' and the ranks close, and they 'can do no wrong', God's 'little good boys'. How dare you question 'authority'?
Inquiry into Hillsbourough? Nahh, we don't need anyone snooping into all that. "The fans were all drunk and the authority that was overseeing it was ordained by God, so let that be an end to it".
Bollocks! The passage was probably inserted by a not very intelligent, gladius swinging, Roman flatfoot after a bad day at work.
Come here Mr Occam and lend me your razor, I am just fed up with silly and futile theodicean explanations attempting to bring rational meaning to an irrationally corrupted text.
Your new suggestion basically amounts to interpolation, which has apparently received some support in the literature. (Though the idea that it was inserted by a common Roman soldier probably moves your view closer to the group containing "it was sarcasm" and "spies!".)
It does not just basically amount to it. I am convinced it is interpolation and one of the reasons for my believing that, is that it is bollocks.
The rest of what I said that you picked up on, I said to join in the game of "Let's try and make some sense of this rubbish because we just can't possibly accept that it is not "The Literally Inspired Word of God", that everyone seems to playing here.
Roll on Occam with your razor!
As I understand it relations between Jews and the Roman authorities were tense, and in the time of Claudius an imperial edict had expelled thousands of Jews from Rome who were not citizens of the City. Paul was concerned that tensions between Jews and Christians might result in similar action being taken against both communities at the time of his letter. A policy of non-confrontation with the Empire, as opposed to the increasingly rebellious posture of the Jews, was to be justified by the events of AD 70.
It was also the case, of course, that Paul on numerous occasions had exploited his Roman citizenship in the course of his ministry, and the gospel's spread greatly benefitted from a Roman peace that had protected and promoted the peaceful commerce of ideas as well as trade.
We might also reflect that the injunction to obey the Emperor, whose authority derives from God, is a corrective to the view that only Christian rulers are to be considered politically legitimate. It detaches Christianity from theocratic approaches to government.
I would suggest that our opposition to tyranny and what we consider unjust laws should not blind us to the fact that anarchy is rarely in the interests of most people, especially the weak. That is why the rule of law , however deficient the laws may be, is usually preferable to each being his/her own judge, and might be considered by Christians to be of God. The morally compromised mayor might be preferable to the High Plains Drifter.
I make these remarks as one uncomfortable with Paul's rather bald remarks in Romans 13, and their obvious failure to address the problem of egregious tyrannical rule and how unjust laws are to be addressed.
A good job he didn't have a twitter account!
For 'obey' there are other words, particularly 'πειθω' and 'πειθαρχεω', the latter being apparently specifically about obeying higher authorities.
'πειθαρχεω' is the word used in another relevant text, Acts 5; 29 where Peter tells the Jewish authorities that
And as I see it, Peter saw his refusal to 'obey' the authorities there as completely compatible with his own advice in I Peter 2; 13
So how do you do 'being subject to' the authorities without necessarily 'obeying' them? You do it like Peter and Paul, who when they could not obey the authorities were nevertheless willing to accept the punishment the authorities inflicted for their disobedience – that is, they accepted martyrdom.
What they did not do was 'resist/αντιτασσομαι', a word which carries implications of a military response, 'setting yourself in array against'. They understood that the authorities were 'ordained' by God ('διαταγη' from 'διατασσω') and that they should not oppose that divine ordination – for which opposition the different word 'ανθιστημι' is used.
For what it's worth, I once tried for a sermon to give the flavour of Paul's words by a paraphrase in which the 'tasso' related words were rendered by English words with the '-ject' root. It's not a perfect translation, but it gives an impression not available in ordinary English of how Greek-speakers might see the words related.
And yes, it applies to whatever government, including in Paul's day the likes of Nero. God's 'ordination' in this case means something like his 'providential arrangement', not necessarily his full approval. In effect, he doesn't approve of a Nero – but he has permitted Nero for the time being as the appropriate government to achieve, in various ways, his overall purposes for those Nero rules. (and before screaming objection to that, bear in mind that unless you think you're wonderfully perfect, God is pretty certainly also permitting you a lot of things/deeds that he doesn't approve of – you want him to clobber Nero, you're basically asking for your own misconduct to be clobbered too).
Therefore Christians must be 'subject to' Nero but not necessarily 'obey' Nero. If they find it necessary to disobey, they will not start a military opposition revolution, they will accept martyrdom.
I think that makes the major point. On one other point, sketchily....
As I see it, the 'disconnect' between Romans 13; 1-7 and its surroundings is real, but it's not because it's a later addition/interpolation by 'not-Paul'. More a case that the whole of Romans is a bit of a patchwork, as if Paul were saying to his scribe “Now where did we put that sermon on the human condition”, or “Pass me those notes on the anomaly of Jewish rejection of Jesus” and assembling these into a manual of basic Christian ideas.
In the case of Romans 13; 1-7 there is a sense in which it is indeed 'not-Paul'; as witnessed by Peter's similar phrasing in his epistle, it is part of a common Christian approach to these issues,. It doesn't feel like Paul because it isn't his own personal words, he's quoting from this common store of ideas; but nevertheless it's Paul who put it there and he still very much agrees with the point made.
I also think that we have tended to isolate Romans 13; 1-7 as the 'go-to' text on this topic; we have tended to isolate it from the surrounding teaching in Romans, especially chapter 12. And we have neglected I Peter which if anything has more to say both on 'church and state' and 'church and world'.
Rebelling against the authorities in a warlike way is wrong - even God will oppose you; obeying God rather than man may give you difficulties with the authorities - but this is a case where followers of a risen-from-death Jesus have nothing to fear.
As a general rule if you are doing right, the authorities will commend you. The occasions they may not are occasions when they are themselves doing wrong to begin with.
The key point to grasp here is this difference between 'obeying' the authorities - doing evil when they command it - and being 'subject to' the authorities even when unable to simply obey. I don't think there are many takers on the ship for the 'simply obey the authorities' line - wasn't it a misuse of the text in that way in the US which gave rise to this thread? Be clear that simple obedience is not required and it puts a different perspective on the surrounding issues....
Christianity's problems with Rome arose from an increasing insistence on enforcing religious conformity and particularly worship of emperors as gods. Whereas a cult of one particular ethnic group of subjects (eg, the Jews) can be given a pass on that to some extent, Christians could be, well, the guy next door. It was a bit like the American 'Reds under the bed' scares in the 1950s. And one thing Paul is saying here is that to ride out this situation, Christians must not be a threat of rebellion, they must be good citizens wherever they can, only opposing where they really must.
Paul didn't write it so I don't see that God needed to correct him. Whoever did write it, was doing exactly the kind of thing that John of Revelation was getting fed up with, so decided to curse the sods who he well knew were inclined, at that time, to do it.
I had made my position clear early on in the thread. "Possible interpolation, not Paul".
I was not being 'frugal' when expressing my personal opinion that Rom.13:1-6 is bollocks and was probably written by a Roman flatfoot after a particularly difficult day on the beat. I was being facetious. I am convinced it does not come from any legitimate apostolic authority. [Though, were I a translator I would letter it and put it in a footnote that blithely following this advice as if from God himself, could seriously endanger the moral health of a whole nation, even the world.]
Quite a lot of other people find it to be very sloppy theology. Paul could presumably make mistakes, but he never ever anywhere else eulogises Roman authority in quite as overt a way as Rom.13:1-6. Remove it and what is left are almost certainly the original words of Paul: You know, the one who was always being thrown into Roman jails for preaching the gospel and disturbing the peace and was eventually beheaded by "Roman Justice".
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [?] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
Which basically says the same thing as Rom.13:1-6, but without the sycophantic justification of Roman might and draconian control.
So far I consider Steve Langton's to be the only convincing argument so far for Rom.13:1-6 actually being Paul. And even of that I have my reservations.
So do I, which is probably why it is there in the Bible, but if you read it carefully what we seem to want it to say, is not what it actually says.
What it actually implies is "Don't oppose The Nazis, Phol Pott or Stalin, because they are all good people keeping the lid on trouble in the world, for God.
Its it's over enthusiasm for declaring secular authority, without exception, righteous, that makes me think its not Paul speaking. Paul probably stopped at Rom.12:21 and went straight through to Rom.13:7.
Isn't that exactly what the passage is not saying, except insofar as all political authorities are sanctioned by God: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
What, Mudfrog, is your attitude to laws which you consider not sanctioned by God? Do you disobey them? Many Christians (and others) in democracies regard their governments as working against the righteous will of God but put up with them and do not challenge their legitimacy.
There is the alternative though of simply not obediently carrying out the edicts of the authorities. For instance, under Nazi rule, it was treason to harbour Jews. Many did though and chose to risk death themselves rather than carry out Nazi policies. Opposing such regimes openly can get you quickly 'disappeared'.
I find it very difficult to believe Paul was unaware of the propensity for absolute power to corrupt absolutely and even suggest that corrupt power is actually instituted by God and we have therefore 'nothing to fear from it'.
Is there anything more to support that theory? Some change in language?
¹Kallas, J. "Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation" New Testament Studies, 11 (1965), 365-66
What change in language would you accept as proof that it was written by someone else. If it was the only bit written in Croasian or Swahili perhaps? These are only 6 verses of Greek, like the rest of Romans.
a. This doesn't fit with my picture of the rest of what Paul wrote and what I think he stands for. So he can't have said it. Or
b. I don't like what this says. So I'd like to find an argument that allows me to claim he didn't say it.
I think we have to assume that Paul wrote it, and then work out what he meant, what the implications are etc. unless there are really persuasive objective reasons for thinking otherwise.
Meanwhile thank you @Steve Langton. We don't always agree on other things, and I think my tag might not have worked, but I think your exegesis here is clear, well written and pretty persuasive.
I think it's a bit late in time now to expect much conclusive evidence to turn up, proving beyond doubt that some interpolating arsehole has adulterated Paul's text with irrational graffiti of his own.
Yes, only 6 - but is the language in much the same vocabulary that paul uses, what about the syntax, the grammatical complexity and so forth. As I said a page or so ago, I don't have any Greek and only very, very limited Biblical scholarship and mine was a genuine request. In other words, what Enoch says.
The law in the UK declares it to be legal. I d not agree. Many thousands disagree and indeed, the denomination to which I belong has made it clear in its very recent revision of its ceremonies book that it stands by the New Testament standard of marriage that is one man and one woman for life.
That puts me and my church at odds with this government.
If this government or any future government tried to force us to conduct SSMs it would have a fight because we believe that the government has overstepped the authority given to it by God.
I understand and appreciate your position. It is much like my own. Did Paul have copyright on his writing style to the degree that his hand can clearly be differentiated in as few as 6 verses? Depends upon which 6 verses you take I suppose. He did use certain words that others didn't, even coined one or two which were unique, not only to himself but which appear nowhere else in Greek literature. That understandably makes it difficult to understand exactly what he meant by them. We can only rely on context to guess at it. ('Homosexual' being one of the words that translators hang on a Pauline Composite word we simply do not know the meaning of).
The six verses in question, as far as I know, do not contain any of those distinctively Pauline words. The passage is rather dull and uninspiring anyway, but so were quite a few undisputed Pauline ones too. Paul, like any other author was sometimes more inspired than at other times. Not all his prose reaches the sublime heights of 1 Cor.13.
I'm sure you would, Mudfrog, but you could not advance Romans 13 in support, rather the reverse.
2) If Mudfrog means to have a fight with the government over SSM in a physical way, like the Puritans fighting King Charles in the ECW, then I'd agree with Kwesi that Romans 13 would be against him! But so long as he simply means that they won't obey the demand that they practice SSM themselves or perform it for others, then that seems to fit Romans 13 well. They will, I hope, be subject to the government both in accepting the right of non-Christians to do SSM if they must, and in accepting penalties from the government for their refusal to comply.
Because.......?
I like it even more when they are people that regard it as 'The Inerrant and Authoritative Word of God', that says something they don't like.
Mudfrog opines that and then cites SSM as 'going against God's Word'.
Well OK no one should be made to preside over a ceremony, marriage or otherwise. But what if Mudfrog had Jews hiding in his cellar, or attic, in 1942's Holland?
The Nazi Occupation is only expecting to be informed of the truth. They are not 'changing anything God has said', I don't remember a text saying "Thou shalt not inform the Nazis or lie to them". What does Mudfrog do then? At least Steve Langton would be willing to be disobedient of an immoral edict from the state, even though he believes his inerrant Bible tells him "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." and even goes further informing him "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." making it perfectly clear that informing on the Jewish people in his cellar is a good thing, not bad, BECAUSE it is a command issued by a God instituted authority, "who is God's servant for your good".
Come on Mudfrog. God's servant for your good is demanding you tell them the truth about the persons hiding in your attic or cellar. What do you do then?