O the subject of Jeff Sessions quoting Rom.13:1-6 in support of The Trump Administration.
What Hypocrisy!
An American, quoting a section of scripture which unequivocally, without exception declares ALL authority instituted by God, ALL authority God's agents in enforcing righteousness, All authority to be unquestioningly submitted to, by all good people and that those who do not hold themselves in submission are the wicked and therefore subject to God's wrath.
Yet he is a subject of a nation that overthrew God's appointed Regal Authority, defied and denigrated it, refused to pay taxes to it, (expressly forbidden by Rom.13:1-6), and set up its OWN Authority in opposition to the one it had openly rebelled against in abject disobedience to Rom.13:1-6. Which Sessions now chooses to authenticate Trumps Divine Inauguration.
It's a little reminiscent of the Chinese idea that the Emperor rules because he possesses The Mandate of Heaven; when that is withdrawn, he falls.
In China it was a useful way of regaining stability after you'd had a change of regime. The Western Divine Right of Kings didn't work so well in that way.
Indeed, which is why when Charles I overstepped the authority given him - even that given by God himself - Parliament was right to strip him of his position.
Whether they should have killed him is another matter entirely.
Given the meticulous care with which the Puritans were apt to dissect the Bible, can anyone tell me how they managed to square the execution of Charles - and, indeed, the whole Civil War against him - with Romans 13?
Incidentally, one significant difference between the Chinese idea of the Mandate of Heaven and a European Absolute Monarchy is that the Mandate could be withdrawn. Natural disasters were often seen as signs that Heaven had withdrawn its Mandate, and it was not unknown for Government Ministers to remind Emperors that the continuance of Heaven's Mandate depended on their obedience to Conficianist norms.
I guess they would say that God's authority lay not in the man called Charles, but in the Monarch with Parliament.
Killing the King did not negate God's authority over church and state.
Rom.13:1-6 leaves absolutely no room whatever for speculation about whether any authority is actually righteous.
I argued for an interpretation of Romans 13 earlier in the thread in which there is plenty of room. (It is about the legitimacy of the functions of government rather than about the actual behaviour of the governors.) I think it's a much more plausible thing for any first-century writer to argue than the argument that authorities are actually righteous.
I didn't see any argument against my position apart from general incredulity about any interpretation that the speaker wasn't already familiar with.
I guess they would say that God's authority lay not in the man called Charles, but in the Monarch with Parliament.
Killing the King did not negate God's authority over church and state.
No, but it certainly bumped off "God's Servant for their good, which God had appointed".
They also conveniently missed out the bit about: "the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes",
One the USA "Founding Fathers" conveniently ignored.
I do love the way "Bible believers" so ardently believe the bits they want to believe, and explain away the bits they can even see themselves are irrational or inconvenient to their aims.
I should rejoice I suppose that common sense has triumphed over blind ignorant legalistic 'faith' in the letter of The Word of God.
I just find myself sometimes sympathizing with St Paul when he said in Gal.5:12.
because God's people are not subject to any authority which tries to compel them to be disobedient to God.
Not a scenario that Rom.13:1-6 either contemplates or inspirationally foresees the possibility of it ever occurring.
As I pointed out above, the fact that Paul uses the 'subject to' word 'hypotasso' (and related words with the 'tasso' root) rather than the 'obey' word 'peitharcheo' means that Paul is foreseeing the possibility of disobeying the human authority in order to obey God.
Point is, he's trying to navigate between 'Scylla and Charybdis'. In this case 'Scylla' is the situation where the human ruler says 'jump' and all you know how to do is ask "How high?" Charybdis is the kind of situation seen recently in Northern Ireland where the authority isn't doing what you want so you get the guns and bombs out. Neither situation is at all desirable.
And the answer given by Paul and Peter in nearly parallel passages is that you neither tamely obey NOR violently rebel. You obey God rather than man - but you also recognise the human ruler as God's providential appointment to whom you must 'be subject', accepting the penalty of your disobedience. To do this requires of course confidence that the God who raised Jesus from death can ensure that even though you may be martyred, even that will be to your ultimate good.
The only possible anomaly here is Paul's reference to the human ruler commending the Christian for doing right; and I neither think Paul an idiot or ignoramus (he had after all himself been a persecutor on behalf of an 'authority') nor think that there is an interpolation here. The passage is too coherent and fitting with other scriptures in every other respect except that one phrase.
I do love the way "Bible believers" so ardently believe the bits they want to believe, and explain away the bits they can even see themselves are irrational or inconvenient to their aims.
We all do this. We have to, because the Bible contradicts itself.
I do love the way "Bible believers" so ardently believe the bits they want to believe, and explain away the bits they can even see themselves are irrational or inconvenient to their aims.
We all do this. We have to, because the Bible contradicts itself.
Rom.13:1-6 leaves absolutely no room whatever for speculation about whether any authority is actually righteous.
I argued for an interpretation of Romans 13 earlier in the thread in which there is plenty of room. (It is about the legitimacy of the functions of government rather than about the actual behaviour of the governors.) I think it's a much more plausible thing for any first-century writer to argue than the argument that authorities are actually righteous.
I didn't see any argument against my position apart from general incredulity about any interpretation that the speaker wasn't already familiar with.
My objection is that although your proposed distinction between legitimacy of functions and persons is plausible enough on its own, I can't see even a trace of it in the text itself. Your interpretation may leave room for speculation, but it's only tenuously connected to the passage.
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 you will be commended.
I don't see how to get to your position from this statement without stretching the words beyond all recognition. My objection isn't based on general incredulity about any interpretation I wasn't already familiar with; it's a very specific incredulity that a passage containing this clear reassurance can be fairly read as some kind of civics lesson about how rulers ought to behave.
You may well believe for other reasons that your position is less implausible than that Paul was arguing the authorities are actually righteous - but that doesn't mean it isn't still quite implausible. If Paul really meant to write what you think he did, he did a shitty job of it.
I guess they would say that God's authority lay not in the man called Charles, but in the Monarch with Parliament.
Killing the King did not negate God's authority over church and state.
No, but it certainly bumped off "God's Servant for their good, which God had appointed".
Maybe that's the point - he was no longer a servant of God.
Saul was anointed king - but God was happy for David to take over.
I guess they would say that God's authority lay not in the man called Charles, but in the Monarch with Parliament.
Killing the King did not negate God's authority over church and state.
No, but it certainly bumped off "God's Servant for their good, which God had appointed".
Maybe that's the point - he was no longer a servant of God.
Saul was anointed king - but God was happy for David to take over.
But that's the problem with Rom.13:1-6. It does not allow you or me or anyone else to make a judgment concerning whether an authority is "No longer a servant of God". It simply and baldly asserts without equivocation, that ALL authorities are Instituted by God and it is the duty and conscience of all of us, to unquestioningly subject ourselves to them at all times, on the assumption that they are carrying out God's will, (for our good), as His duly instituted enforcement agents. There is no 'get out clause' anywhere in Rom.13:1-6.
What the passage actually says can't be read any other way than that. And that is what is the problem with it. That is why it is unlikely to be "The infallibly direct and unquestionable Word of God", because it literally does not allow for you or I to legitimately question an authority's legitimacy as a 'servant of God'. We must always submit to the demands of authority.
You and I in the power of the Spirit of truth may refuse to submit to evil authorities, but not without incurring the wrath of God, according to Rom.13:1-6. Because according to it, there are no evil authorities.
I'm with @RdrEmCofE on this one. You can't maintain a position of biblical authority / inerrancy / whatever you wish to call it (it's your job to distinguish between these terms, not mine), sometimes slamming people on the head "Haven't you read Mark x:y??" (which some of you have done with me), while at the same time wiggling your way out of this verse saying that all authority comes from God.
You cannot take one Bible passage on its own - well, at least that's the charge laid against many evangelicals when they say, for example, 'you must be born again'. Oh, but you can't just say a sinners prayer, etc, look at what the rest of the NT says about spiritual formation, etc.'
So, that's exactly what you'll find evangelicals doing - even those who hold to e=inerrancy and infallibility. I've often thought that the greatest critics of evangelicalism are probably more 'literalist' in their view of Scripture (or at least they accuse evangelicals of being more literalist than they actually are!), so much so that when an evangelical places one verse against another so that there is a comparison, a cross-illumination, they cry foul!
Why should we keep Romans 13 in isolation, say it must be taken on its own account and not looked at in the light of the whole counsel of Scripture? It says what it says, but it must be added to other stuff in order to explain and illuminate it.
I can't say that Romans 13 is the only verses that speak of secular authority and the church. There are others and so we must add them all together and see what the overall teaching is.
Render unto Caesar, etc.
This verse does indeed say that all authority comes from God.
But without denying that - and in fact supporting it - there are occasions when those who usurp or misuse that authority have it removed from them! Saul, Jezebel and some of the OT kings of Israel, David, Herod; are these not all examples of those given God's authority and who were to be obeyed, but who, when falling away lost that authority, lost privilege and in some cases lost their lives.
Look at Peter's words to the authority he stood before in Acts: 'we must obey God rather than men.'
These are not contradictions but illuminations, God's authority is precisely that: It's God's authority; which means it reflects his character and commandments.
Can you not see that when a secular ruler rules in accordance with God's principles (even without knowing, (because spirit pervades everything good) then he is ruling in such a way that we should obey complicitly; but the whole tenor of Scripture, of which Romans 13 is but a part, suggests strongly that this given-authority is not absolute and is not unquestionable once it is in the hands of men. It is still God's authority and, like the British Parliament, the PM governs in the name of the Crown, not his own party. S secular ruler rules with God's 'loaned' authority - as Romans 13 says. But it can be taken away, as the Bible teaches and history shows.
Quite frankly, Mudfrog, I find your reasoning borders on wilful sophistry. The notion that the bible has a coherent view on the question of political legitimacy and the right of rebellion against rulers is simply not sustainable.
Appeals to the Old Testament are highly problematic because there one is dealing with a mono-cultural society with shared values, religion, and a single God. The Roman Empire, by contrast, was multi-ethnic, with many Gods, and consequent diversity of values that frequently conflicted. Part of the solution was to declare the Emperor a God in his own right, and as such legitimised his own actions with the co-operation of a compliant senate. The Jews, of course, had great problems with this, which ultimately led to the disastrous rebellion of AD 70. Romans 13, for all its egregious limitations, is sound advice to a powerless Christian minority not to challenge an Augustan settlement that had brought peace and prosperity following the ravages of civil war.
References to the English (or rather British) Civil War of the seventeenth century are particularly pertinent, in that the various sides and factions within them, Monarchists, Republicans, Regicides, Levellers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents and so on argued their cases based on scripture. Different parties emphasised the importance of biblical passages according to the interests they represented, thereby sanctifying and deepening hostility and division.
One consequence was to produce perhaps the most seminal work of modern political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, which he described as a mortal God. Hobbes stated that 'fear and I were twins' and that what men most feared was 'violent death'. For him the civil war was like a state of nature in which life was, 'horrible, violent, nasty, brutish and short,' and the absence of peace rendered civilised life impossible. He concluded that the best solution was for men to surrender all political power to a Leviathan in exchange for peace and protection from violence and death. The sentiments expressed in Romans 13, where the Emperor is a mortal God, are not too dissimilar from those of Hobbes.
For many people in the contemporary world the preoccupation of Westerners with what they choose to call fundamental human rights are an indulgent luxury because what they most crave is peace and order in a world of anarchy, exposure to physical violence, and constant threat of death. Romans 13: 1-6 to such might seem a divine blessing.
What I find most surprising about Paul's claim that all authority is God-derived is how any intelligent and historically-aware Jew could have thought such a thing for a moment.
A running refrain in the Book of Kings is He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. A moment's consideration of - among many other instances - Jezebel, Ahab and the messy business of Naboth's Vineyard would surely have disabused Paul of any notion that those in authority are ipso facto doing God's will.
And yet I have no doubt that the words ascribed to Paul appear in the received text of Romans. I just don't understand how he could have written them!
I agree with your analysis. I find it difficult to believe that any Jew no matter how ignorant, could have penned this in view of their understanding of OT scripture and how God frequently upbraided ungodly authority.
That is why I suspect whoever penned this short passage, was not Jewish and therefore certainly not an intelligent Jew like Paul.
A major feature of this post has been opposition to the notion that an individual can be assigned by a third party to a particular social or biological category. The problem is that if assignment is to be a matter for each individual subject then it makes rational discussion of phenomena impossible because there can be no common agreement as to what one is talking about. If, for example, the designation of an individual as 'transphobic' or a 'bigot' is denied by the transgressor, does that mean he/she is neither of those things? Racists may deny they are such, but I might want to insist to them and others that their actions indicate otherwise. The Ugly Duckling really was a swan.
Social science research has long recognised the distinction between what people say they are and how academia regards them. For example, a series of questions in a survey were designed to place a respondent in a social class schema used by the researcher. Respondents, however, were also asked to assign themselves to a class of their own choosing. Consequently, findings could be discussed in terms of assigned and self-assigned class. ISTM that our discussion here could be less fraught if a distinction between assigned sex and assigned gender, and self-assigned sex and self-assigned gender could be made. Analytically, it would also be helpful to compare the cis-gendered and trans-gendered amongst 'men' and 'women' to see whether there are significant differences or not.
it's a very specific incredulity that a passage containing this clear reassurance can be fairly read as some kind of civics lesson about how rulers ought to behave.
While a theory of the functions and legitimacy of political office has strong implications for how rulers ought to behave, it is not directly a theory about how rulers ought to behave. That is not the question Paul is trying to answer.
You may well believe for other reasons that your position is less implausible than that Paul was arguing the authorities are actually righteous - but that doesn't mean it isn't still quite implausible. If Paul really meant to write what you think he did, he did a shitty job of it.
I feel that any interpretation that takes as axiomatic that Paul always expresses himself clearly and systematically is doomed to failure.
He's dictating occasional letters not writing a systematic philosophy.
it's a very specific incredulity that a passage containing this clear reassurance can be fairly read as some kind of civics lesson about how rulers ought to behave.
While a theory of the functions and legitimacy of political office has strong implications for how rulers ought to behave, it is not directly a theory about how rulers ought to behave. That is not the question Paul is trying to answer.
You may well believe for other reasons that your position is less implausible than that Paul was arguing the authorities are actually righteous - but that doesn't mean it isn't still quite implausible. If Paul really meant to write what you think he did, he did a shitty job of it.
I feel that any interpretation that takes as axiomatic that Paul always expresses himself clearly and systematically is doomed to failure.
He's dictating occasional letters not writing a systematic philosophy.
Which bits of actual Paul do you claim are 'unclear and unsystematic'?
Are you assuming Paul's epistles are all and entirely by Paul, and therefore interpolation and pseudepigraphy cannot exist, and therefore Paul writes, 'unclear and unsystematic', prose.
Paul can be sometimes difficult for some minds to grasp, Peter mentions something about that but unclear and unsystematic is not what Peter implies is wrong with Paul's prose. He implies misunderstanding is basically the fault of the reader, not the author. 2 Pet.3:16.
Respect for authority, leadership is one of our hard wired bee-monkey strengths. Every strength is a weakness, comes at an opportunity cost at least. Christians should make the best of citizens, no matter how enlightened.
Respect for authority, leadership is one of our hard wired bee-monkey strengths. Every strength is a weakness, comes at an opportunity cost at least. Christians should make the best of citizens, no matter how enlightened.
Indeed, enlightenment should actually make them better, more discerning, more socially involved and helpful citizens.
Unfortunately, the passage in question effectively demands unquestioning submission to all authority, regardless of its demands upon its citizens.
Rather than question the conduct of authorities against the standard of God's Law, (whatever that might be understood to be), it asserts that God's Law, (whatever that might be understood to be), is universally instituted by God, in all authority and all authority must therefore be submitted to by everybody.
I can't find anything wrong with the concept that submission to authority is generally a good thing all round, for everyone, (mostly) but I can see inherent deficiency in the assertions made by the text, whichever way its rigorous pedantry is cleverly explained away.
it's a very specific incredulity that a passage containing this clear reassurance can be fairly read as some kind of civics lesson about how rulers ought to behave.
While a theory of the functions and legitimacy of political office has strong implications for how rulers ought to behave, it is not directly a theory about how rulers ought to behave. That is not the question Paul is trying to answer.
If this:
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 you will be commended.
isn't about how rulers actually behave, nor about how rulers ought to behave, what is it? If Paul isn't trying to answer a question about these things, then why is he talking about these things?
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.
How do the verses above serve the argument you think Paul is making?
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 you will be commended.
When I was a very young child, my mother once pointed out a policeman in uniform, the ubiquitous 'Bobby on the Beat'. She then said to me, "If you ever get lost or are scared of anything, find someone dressed like that". It actually happened once, and all fell out ok for me.
It seems to me that Paul, (if it actually is him), is saying something similar here.
The problem is that there is a huge difference between offering advice like that to a child in 1950's England, and suggesting it to a Christian slave in 1st Century Rome.
Unfortunately, the passage in question effectively demands unquestioning submission to all authority, regardless of its demands upon its citizens.
NO NO NO!
Romans 13 does not demand 'unquestioning' submission to all authority 'regardless of its demands upon its citizens'. What Romans actually requires is a decidedly questioning submission. That is why it uses the 'tasso' group of words rather than 'peitho/peitharcheo' and similar which do require actual obedience.
As per Peter's teaching in Acts 5, the Christian's first and absolute duty is to 'obey God rather than man'; and this will necessarily mean there will be occasions when the Christian will disobey the authorities; far from 'unquestioning submission'. The question is one of how far can this disobedience go ?
Like Peter, Paul is advocating a disobedience which nevertheless remains 'subject' by being willing to accept the consequences in terms of martyrdom.
Unfortunately, the passage in question effectively demands unquestioning submission to all authority, regardless of its demands upon its citizens.
NO NO NO!
Romans 13 does not demand 'unquestioning' submission to all authority 'regardless of its demands upon its citizens'. What Romans actually requires is a decidedly questioning submission. That is why it uses the 'tasso' group of words rather than 'peitho/peitharcheo' and similar which do require actual obedience.
As per Peter's teaching in Acts 5, the Christian's first and absolute duty is to 'obey God rather than man'; and this will necessarily mean there will be occasions when the Christian will disobey the authorities; far from 'unquestioning submission'. The question is one of how far can this disobedience go ?
Like Peter, Paul is advocating a disobedience which nevertheless remains 'subject' by being willing to accept the consequences in terms of martyrdom.
'Unquestioning submission': It certainly reads that way from every English translation I can search.
g5293. ὑποτάσσω hypotassō; from 5259 and 5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey: — be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
AV (40) - put under 6, be subject unto 6, be subject to 5, submit (one's) self unto 5, submit (one's) self to 3, be in subjection unto 2, put in subjection under 1, misc 12;
to arrange under, to subordinate to subject, put in subjection to subject one's self, obey to submit to one's control to yield to one's admonition or advice to obey, be subject - A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
Nothing very 'questioning' implied in (ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;).
You are probably right though that many Christians preferred to lose their lives rather than rebel against authorities and Paul was certainly one of them.
I don't think it is possible to wriggle out of the pedantic universality of hypotassō though, as if the author is tacitly leaving a get out clause in case Christians find themselves under the heel of the Third Reich or on The Normandy Invasion beaches. That was some big time lack of 'submission to a self appointed even Satanically appointed authority', I'd say.
Rom.13:1-6 does not in any way cover that eventuality.
@RdrEmCofE, ohhhhhh no it doesn't. Paul was talking about ordinary civil life in the Roman empire. Prior to Nero. His submission to the state was exemplary and it served Christianity well. He was a law and order man. Who isn't? From God incarnate on down?
@RdrEmCofE, ohhhhhh no it doesn't. Paul was talking about ordinary civil life in the Roman empire. Prior to Nero. His submission to the state was exemplary and it served Christianity well. He was a law and order man. Who isn't? From God incarnate on down?
As enigmatic as ever Martin. Just what are you disagreeing with?
(ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) in Rom.13:1 is the same (ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) that he used at Rom.10:3
If both were Paul, it kinda shows that, as far as he was concerned, there was little difference between submission to God's Law and submission to Roman Law. It amounted in the end to the same thing because the Roman authorities were instituted by God. According to Rom.13:1-6.
You are probably right though that many Christians preferred to lose their lives rather than rebel against authorities and Paul was certainly one of them.
And this is really showing your confusion - if Paul wasn't 'rebel(ling) against authorities', why would the authorities be executing him? The point is precisely that on the one hand Paul was not giving unquestioning obedience to the authorities, but on the other hand, he was also not rebelling but 'submitting to/recognising' the authority of the human ruler and accepting martyrdom because of his necessary disobedience to the rulers in order to obey God.
As opposed to the word used by Peter for obedience to God, peitharcheo ('peitho'/obey plus 'arch-'/ruler), the tasso group of verbs does allow 'wriggle room' for a submission that isn't blind obedience.
From a biblical viewpoint even Hitler is in fact in a sense 'appointed by God' - or do you think Hitler is able to boss God around? But also from a biblical viewpoint, the Christian is not required to blindly obey Hitler - but is required not to militarily rebel against such a ruler.
@RdrEmCofE, ohhhhhh no it doesn't. Paul was talking about ordinary civil life in the Roman empire. Prior to Nero. His submission to the state was exemplary and it served Christianity well. He was a law and order man. Who isn't? From God incarnate on down?
As enigmatic as ever Martin. Just what are you disagreeing with?
(ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) in Rom.13:1 is the same (ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) that he used at Rom.10:3
If both were Paul, it kinda shows that, as far as he was concerned, there was little difference between submission to God's Law and submission to Roman Law. It amounted in the end to the same thing because the Roman authorities were instituted by God. According to Rom.13:1-6.
Lighten up kid. Give Paul a break. I don't do textism. Unless it's Ren and Stimpy. You know, something important. But obsession over words, nuance, meaning, feel with their exploding factorial permutations is only fit for such... whimsy.
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 you will be commended.
isn't about how rulers actually behave, nor about how rulers ought to behave, what is it? If Paul isn't trying to answer a question about these things, then why is he talking about these things?
Because "a theory of the functions and legitimacy of political office has strong implications for how rulers ought to behave".
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.
How do the verses above serve the argument you think Paul is making?[/quote]
I think 'For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad et al' is meant as grounds adduced in support of the thesis in the previous two verses or the subsequent verse about doing what is right for conscience' sake. Paul expects his audience to agree that, either in general or when exercising their proper functions, the authorities punish criminals and don't punish people who are doing good. Therefore, that being how they work, we owe them allegiance for conscience' sake as well as out of a desire to avoid punishment. (The questions I take to be strictly rhetorical and addressed to a generic 'you' not the specific audience.) If he means the bit about not wanting to be afraid of the authorities as practical advice as to how to behave then the bit about conscience doesn't follow.
Which bits of actual Paul do you claim are 'unclear and unsystematic'?
Is this a serious question? If I instanced Romans 9-11 would you claim that Paul has a fully worked out and lucid doctrine on the salvation of the Jewish people? Does Paul have a clear position in Romans 2-3 on whether there are any gentiles who do what the Law requires and have it written on their heart or whether there is noone who does what the Law requires? That's just off the top of my head.
Are you assuming Paul's epistles are all and entirely by Paul, and therefore interpolation and pseudepigraphy cannot exist, and therefore Paul writes, 'unclear and unsystematic', prose.
This looks to me as if you're preparing a No True Pauline epistles argument.
(I'm not assuming that all of 'Paul' is by Paul. But the core letters are generally accepted as by him and the only passage in them for which I'm aware of a good reason to consider interpolated is the couple of verses in 1 Cor 14 about women having to keep silent in church. There is I believe some question about whether 2 Corinthians was written as one letter with all the passages in the order in which we have them, but even passages that are clearly part of the same argument contain grammatical and logical leaps.)
Steve Langton As per Peter's teaching in Acts 5, the Christian's first and absolute duty is to 'obey God rather than man'; and this will necessarily mean there will be occasions when the Christian will disobey the authorities; far from 'unquestioning submission'. The question is one of how far can this disobedience go ?
.......But note the different contexts. In Acts 5 Peter is not addressing the Roman authorities but the Jewish religious authorities with whom he had shared values regarding the primacy of the God's law. That position was a source of constant tension between imperial rule and the Jews, which snapped in 70 AD because it was unsustainable. Romans 13: 1-6, as I've argued earlier, was a much more sensible and realistic approach for a weak Christian minority to take.
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 you will be commended.
isn't about how rulers actually behave, nor about how rulers ought to behave, what is it? If Paul isn't trying to answer a question about these things, then why is he talking about these things?
Because "a theory of the functions and legitimacy of political office has strong implications for how rulers ought to behave".
Oh, so it is an important part of Paul's civics lesson - it's there because part of Paul's argument relies on a statement about how rulers ought to behave.
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.
How do the verses above serve the argument you think Paul is making?
I think 'For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad et al' is meant as grounds adduced in support of the thesis in the previous two verses or the subsequent verse about doing what is right for conscience' sake. Paul expects his audience to agree that, either in general or when exercising their proper functions, the authorities punish criminals and don't punish people who are doing good.
That authorities may behave properly some of the time, or even most of the time, can hardly be grounds for saying they've been established by God. Why would anyone think that mediocre-to-adequate rulership is somehow a sign of divine endorsement of either the person or the institution of a ruler? And that rebellion against authorities brings judgement is explicitly a consequence of them being established by God; again, not strongly supported by the idea that "in general" they behave properly.
Therefore, that being how they work, we owe them allegiance for conscience' sake as well as out of a desire to avoid punishment. (The questions I take to be strictly rhetorical and addressed to a generic 'you' not the specific audience.) If he means the bit about not wanting to be afraid of the authorities as practical advice as to how to behave then the bit about conscience doesn't follow.
The bit about conscience could simply be "you should obey because otherwise you are 'rebelling against what God has instituted'" as claimed from the start.
I think I understand your reading, Dafyd. Paul is saying that the functions of earthly authority, the offices, have been instituted by God; even pagans can exercise these functions properly, and generally do in that time and place, so Christians should obey the authorities for reasons of both pragmatism and conscience.
But he doesn't actually say anything specifically about the authorities being pagan, and never even gestures at the possibility of authorities behaving unjustly. You've suggested that could be because the authorities facing his audience were performing with "reasonable integrity", but I'd be surprised to learn they were so good that motivated rebels couldn't complain of any injustices that would prompt at least some kind of recognition of imperfection from Paul. And if the municipal Roman authorities really were such obvious paragons of virtue that both Paul and his audience take their integrity for granted, what kind of crazy things do we imagine the rebels are up to? "Down with good governance and the fair execution of just laws!"
I think you may have the most reasonable explanation (barring the elastic escape hatch of interpolation), but that still doesn't mean it's very convincing. Obviously we're greatly handicapped by not having more information about what prompted this passage. It's kind of like a really unsatisfying metaphorical jigsaw puzzle; instead of having most of the picture and guessing about what the few pieces missing look like, we've got a few really weird pieces that look like they fit together, but its not at all obvious what surrounding puzzle pieces could be that would both fit with the ones we have and also make them seem less weird than they appear by themselves.
Which bits of actual Paul do you claim are 'unclear and unsystematic'?
Is this a serious question? If I instanced Romans 9-11 would you claim that Paul has a fully worked out and lucid doctrine on the salvation of the Jewish people? Does Paul have a clear position in Romans 2-3 on whether there are any gentiles who do what the Law requires and have it written on their heart or whether there is noone who does what the Law requires? That's just off the top of my head.
Are you assuming Paul's epistles are all and entirely by Paul, and therefore interpolation and pseudepigraphy cannot exist, and therefore Paul writes, 'unclear and unsystematic', prose.
This looks to me as if you're preparing a No True Pauline epistles argument.
(I'm not assuming that all of 'Paul' is by Paul. But the core letters are generally accepted as by him and the only passage in them for which I'm aware of a good reason to consider interpolated is the couple of verses in 1 Cor 14 about women having to keep silent in church. There is I believe some question about whether 2 Corinthians was written as one letter with all the passages in the order in which we have them, but even passages that are clearly part of the same argument contain grammatical and logical leaps.)
Yes, it was a serious question. I was not just trying to trip you up.
Before deciding who is at fault if some of what appears in Paul's letters is 'unclear and unsystematic', we would first have to be fairly sure it actually is Paul that wrote it. Some epistles are unquestionably genuine Paul in the estimation of almost all scholars. That would be a good place to start examining 'unclarity or unsystematicalness' (excuse the coining). Once a real feel has been grasped of Paul's style and usage of language, idioms and historical detail that might only have come from Paul, then the other letters could be examined for anomalies, or even improbabilities. (Like terms being used that would have been unlikely to be in currency at the time Paul would actually have been writing them).
If actual Paul is 'unclear and unsystematic' occasionally, (and I am by no means counting that possibility out), what are the implications for scriptural inerrancy. Are they any worse than accepting that certain bits in Paul, might not be Paul at all.
Does anyone suppose the passage might be influenced by the destruction of Jerusalem? There had been a ten year campaign going on in which hundreds of thousands of Jews had been slaughtered by the Roman in Palestine, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem, burning and looting of the temple, followed by the slaughter of almost its entire population.
The Roman General that oversaw all this became Emperor after Nero died and Rome had 2 years civil war and 4 successive Emperors, each usually having the previous one murdered.
Far from presenting a picture epitomized by Rom.13:1-6, It makes Rom.13:1-6 look like a desperate attempt to look loyal to ANY authority, which ever one happens to have grabbed power for itself but claims it is instituted by God.
Rom.13:1-6, depending on when it was written, may simply be the equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" scrap of paper with which he tried to appease Hitler.
That's what mean though. Broad consensus means some might place it near enough to 66 for some foresighted fellow like Paul to have sensed the way the wind was blowing and decided that overstating the case, (secular authorities wise), was the best option for protecting the church.
Hence the possibly tongue in cheek, "Peace in our time" cautious advice.
Is Paul usually assumed to have been particularly foresighted? (If so, odd that you would pick a phrase by Neville Chamberlain to characterize his message.) And he didn't just say "secular authorities wise", he said all authorities are instituted by God and hold no terror for those who do right. If he wanted to warn against the possibility of future persecution, why go out of his way to imply that the exact opposite was guaranteed by God?
I think you're better off with your interpolation theory.
DaveW The broad consensus is mid to late 50s, according to Wikipedia, well before the start of the revolt in 66.
I think the immediate circumstance was the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius rather than any foreknowledge of the Jewish revolt during the AD 60s. The date is not precisely known. Claudius, however, was emperor from 41 AD to 54 AD, and estimated dates for the expulsion are circa 50 AD, which neatly coincide for an epistle written in the mid-AD 50s. (Previously there had been expulsions in 139 BC and 19 AD).
Note Acts 18: 1-2: "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome."
Is Paul usually assumed to have been particularly foresighted? (If so, odd that you would pick a phrase by Neville Chamberlain to characterize his message.) And he didn't just say "secular authorities wise", he said all authorities are instituted by God and hold no terror for those who do right. If he wanted to warn against the possibility of future persecution, why go out of his way to imply that the exact opposite was guaranteed by God?
I think you're better off with your interpolation theory.
DaveW The broad consensus is mid to late 50s, according to Wikipedia, well before the start of the revolt in 66.
I think the immediate circumstance was the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius rather than any foreknowledge of the Jewish revolt during the AD 60s. The date is not precisely known. Claudius, however, was emperor from 41 AD to 54 AD, and estimated dates for the expulsion are circa 50 AD, which neatly coincide for an epistle written in the mid-AD 50s. (Previously there had been expulsions in 139 BC and 19 AD).
Note Acts 18: 1-2: "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome."
DaveW The broad consensus is mid to late 50s, according to Wikipedia, well before the start of the revolt in 66.
I think the immediate circumstance was the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius rather than any foreknowledge of the Jewish revolt during the AD 60s.
But again, if he's trying to help Christians avoid persecution by abusive authorities, it's very odd that he would choose to do it by talking about how authorities were all instituted by God and held no fear for those who did good. The idea that he could have been particularly inspired by a fairly recent example of abuse doesn't seem to add to the plausibility of this interpretation.
Comments
What Hypocrisy!
An American, quoting a section of scripture which unequivocally, without exception declares ALL authority instituted by God, ALL authority God's agents in enforcing righteousness, All authority to be unquestioningly submitted to, by all good people and that those who do not hold themselves in submission are the wicked and therefore subject to God's wrath.
Yet he is a subject of a nation that overthrew God's appointed Regal Authority, defied and denigrated it, refused to pay taxes to it, (expressly forbidden by Rom.13:1-6), and set up its OWN Authority in opposition to the one it had openly rebelled against in abject disobedience to Rom.13:1-6. Which Sessions now chooses to authenticate Trumps Divine Inauguration.
What incredible hypocrisy! Unbelievable!
This post is primarily about politics rather than the Bible. As such it does not belong in Keryg.
Host hat off
Given the meticulous care with which the Puritans were apt to dissect the Bible, can anyone tell me how they managed to square the execution of Charles - and, indeed, the whole Civil War against him - with Romans 13?
Incidentally, one significant difference between the Chinese idea of the Mandate of Heaven and a European Absolute Monarchy is that the Mandate could be withdrawn. Natural disasters were often seen as signs that Heaven had withdrawn its Mandate, and it was not unknown for Government Ministers to remind Emperors that the continuance of Heaven's Mandate depended on their obedience to Conficianist norms.
Killing the King did not negate God's authority over church and state.
I didn't see any argument against my position apart from general incredulity about any interpretation that the speaker wasn't already familiar with.
No, but it certainly bumped off "God's Servant for their good, which God had appointed".
They also conveniently missed out the bit about: "the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes",
One the USA "Founding Fathers" conveniently ignored.
I do love the way "Bible believers" so ardently believe the bits they want to believe, and explain away the bits they can even see themselves are irrational or inconvenient to their aims.
I should rejoice I suppose that common sense has triumphed over blind ignorant legalistic 'faith' in the letter of The Word of God.
I just find myself sometimes sympathizing with St Paul when he said in Gal.5:12.
As I pointed out above, the fact that Paul uses the 'subject to' word 'hypotasso' (and related words with the 'tasso' root) rather than the 'obey' word 'peitharcheo' means that Paul is foreseeing the possibility of disobeying the human authority in order to obey God.
Point is, he's trying to navigate between 'Scylla and Charybdis'. In this case 'Scylla' is the situation where the human ruler says 'jump' and all you know how to do is ask "How high?" Charybdis is the kind of situation seen recently in Northern Ireland where the authority isn't doing what you want so you get the guns and bombs out. Neither situation is at all desirable.
And the answer given by Paul and Peter in nearly parallel passages is that you neither tamely obey NOR violently rebel. You obey God rather than man - but you also recognise the human ruler as God's providential appointment to whom you must 'be subject', accepting the penalty of your disobedience. To do this requires of course confidence that the God who raised Jesus from death can ensure that even though you may be martyred, even that will be to your ultimate good.
The only possible anomaly here is Paul's reference to the human ruler commending the Christian for doing right; and I neither think Paul an idiot or ignoramus (he had after all himself been a persecutor on behalf of an 'authority') nor think that there is an interpolation here. The passage is too coherent and fitting with other scriptures in every other respect except that one phrase.
I think we may all be missing something....
We all do this. We have to, because the Bible contradicts itself.
Yes it doesn't!
You may well believe for other reasons that your position is less implausible than that Paul was arguing the authorities are actually righteous - but that doesn't mean it isn't still quite implausible. If Paul really meant to write what you think he did, he did a shitty job of it.
Maybe that's the point - he was no longer a servant of God.
Saul was anointed king - but God was happy for David to take over.
But that's the problem with Rom.13:1-6. It does not allow you or me or anyone else to make a judgment concerning whether an authority is "No longer a servant of God". It simply and baldly asserts without equivocation, that ALL authorities are Instituted by God and it is the duty and conscience of all of us, to unquestioningly subject ourselves to them at all times, on the assumption that they are carrying out God's will, (for our good), as His duly instituted enforcement agents. There is no 'get out clause' anywhere in Rom.13:1-6.
What the passage actually says can't be read any other way than that. And that is what is the problem with it. That is why it is unlikely to be "The infallibly direct and unquestionable Word of God", because it literally does not allow for you or I to legitimately question an authority's legitimacy as a 'servant of God'. We must always submit to the demands of authority.
You and I in the power of the Spirit of truth may refuse to submit to evil authorities, but not without incurring the wrath of God, according to Rom.13:1-6. Because according to it, there are no evil authorities.
So, that's exactly what you'll find evangelicals doing - even those who hold to e=inerrancy and infallibility. I've often thought that the greatest critics of evangelicalism are probably more 'literalist' in their view of Scripture (or at least they accuse evangelicals of being more literalist than they actually are!), so much so that when an evangelical places one verse against another so that there is a comparison, a cross-illumination, they cry foul!
Why should we keep Romans 13 in isolation, say it must be taken on its own account and not looked at in the light of the whole counsel of Scripture? It says what it says, but it must be added to other stuff in order to explain and illuminate it.
I can't say that Romans 13 is the only verses that speak of secular authority and the church. There are others and so we must add them all together and see what the overall teaching is.
Render unto Caesar, etc.
This verse does indeed say that all authority comes from God.
But without denying that - and in fact supporting it - there are occasions when those who usurp or misuse that authority have it removed from them! Saul, Jezebel and some of the OT kings of Israel, David, Herod; are these not all examples of those given God's authority and who were to be obeyed, but who, when falling away lost that authority, lost privilege and in some cases lost their lives.
Look at Peter's words to the authority he stood before in Acts: 'we must obey God rather than men.'
These are not contradictions but illuminations, God's authority is precisely that: It's God's authority; which means it reflects his character and commandments.
Can you not see that when a secular ruler rules in accordance with God's principles (even without knowing, (because spirit pervades everything good) then he is ruling in such a way that we should obey complicitly; but the whole tenor of Scripture, of which Romans 13 is but a part, suggests strongly that this given-authority is not absolute and is not unquestionable once it is in the hands of men. It is still God's authority and, like the British Parliament, the PM governs in the name of the Crown, not his own party. S secular ruler rules with God's 'loaned' authority - as Romans 13 says. But it can be taken away, as the Bible teaches and history shows.
Appeals to the Old Testament are highly problematic because there one is dealing with a mono-cultural society with shared values, religion, and a single God. The Roman Empire, by contrast, was multi-ethnic, with many Gods, and consequent diversity of values that frequently conflicted. Part of the solution was to declare the Emperor a God in his own right, and as such legitimised his own actions with the co-operation of a compliant senate. The Jews, of course, had great problems with this, which ultimately led to the disastrous rebellion of AD 70. Romans 13, for all its egregious limitations, is sound advice to a powerless Christian minority not to challenge an Augustan settlement that had brought peace and prosperity following the ravages of civil war.
One consequence was to produce perhaps the most seminal work of modern political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, which he described as a mortal God. Hobbes stated that 'fear and I were twins' and that what men most feared was 'violent death'. For him the civil war was like a state of nature in which life was, 'horrible, violent, nasty, brutish and short,' and the absence of peace rendered civilised life impossible. He concluded that the best solution was for men to surrender all political power to a Leviathan in exchange for peace and protection from violence and death. The sentiments expressed in Romans 13, where the Emperor is a mortal God, are not too dissimilar from those of Hobbes.
For many people in the contemporary world the preoccupation of Westerners with what they choose to call fundamental human rights are an indulgent luxury because what they most crave is peace and order in a world of anarchy, exposure to physical violence, and constant threat of death. Romans 13: 1-6 to such might seem a divine blessing.
A running refrain in the Book of Kings is He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. A moment's consideration of - among many other instances - Jezebel, Ahab and the messy business of Naboth's Vineyard would surely have disabused Paul of any notion that those in authority are ipso facto doing God's will.
And yet I have no doubt that the words ascribed to Paul appear in the received text of Romans. I just don't understand how he could have written them!
That is why I suspect whoever penned this short passage, was not Jewish and therefore certainly not an intelligent Jew like Paul.
Social science research has long recognised the distinction between what people say they are and how academia regards them. For example, a series of questions in a survey were designed to place a respondent in a social class schema used by the researcher. Respondents, however, were also asked to assign themselves to a class of their own choosing. Consequently, findings could be discussed in terms of assigned and self-assigned class. ISTM that our discussion here could be less fraught if a distinction between assigned sex and assigned gender, and self-assigned sex and self-assigned gender could be made. Analytically, it would also be helpful to compare the cis-gendered and trans-gendered amongst 'men' and 'women' to see whether there are significant differences or not.
I feel that any interpretation that takes as axiomatic that Paul always expresses himself clearly and systematically is doomed to failure.
He's dictating occasional letters not writing a systematic philosophy.
Which bits of actual Paul do you claim are 'unclear and unsystematic'?
Are you assuming Paul's epistles are all and entirely by Paul, and therefore interpolation and pseudepigraphy cannot exist, and therefore Paul writes, 'unclear and unsystematic', prose.
Paul can be sometimes difficult for some minds to grasp, Peter mentions something about that but unclear and unsystematic is not what Peter implies is wrong with Paul's prose. He implies misunderstanding is basically the fault of the reader, not the author. 2 Pet.3:16.
Indeed, enlightenment should actually make them better, more discerning, more socially involved and helpful citizens.
Unfortunately, the passage in question effectively demands unquestioning submission to all authority, regardless of its demands upon its citizens.
Rather than question the conduct of authorities against the standard of God's Law, (whatever that might be understood to be), it asserts that God's Law, (whatever that might be understood to be), is universally instituted by God, in all authority and all authority must therefore be submitted to by everybody.
I can't find anything wrong with the concept that submission to authority is generally a good thing all round, for everyone, (mostly) but I can see inherent deficiency in the assertions made by the text, whichever way its rigorous pedantry is cleverly explained away.
You said How do the verses above serve the argument you think Paul is making?
When I was a very young child, my mother once pointed out a policeman in uniform, the ubiquitous 'Bobby on the Beat'. She then said to me, "If you ever get lost or are scared of anything, find someone dressed like that". It actually happened once, and all fell out ok for me.
It seems to me that Paul, (if it actually is him), is saying something similar here.
The problem is that there is a huge difference between offering advice like that to a child in 1950's England, and suggesting it to a Christian slave in 1st Century Rome.
NO NO NO!
Romans 13 does not demand 'unquestioning' submission to all authority 'regardless of its demands upon its citizens'. What Romans actually requires is a decidedly questioning submission. That is why it uses the 'tasso' group of words rather than 'peitho/peitharcheo' and similar which do require actual obedience.
As per Peter's teaching in Acts 5, the Christian's first and absolute duty is to 'obey God rather than man'; and this will necessarily mean there will be occasions when the Christian will disobey the authorities; far from 'unquestioning submission'. The question is one of how far can this disobedience go ?
Like Peter, Paul is advocating a disobedience which nevertheless remains 'subject' by being willing to accept the consequences in terms of martyrdom.
'Unquestioning submission': It certainly reads that way from every English translation I can search.
g5293. ὑποτάσσω hypotassō; from 5259 and 5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey: — be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
AV (40) - put under 6, be subject unto 6, be subject to 5, submit (one's) self unto 5, submit (one's) self to 3, be in subjection unto 2, put in subjection under 1, misc 12;
to arrange under, to subordinate to subject, put in subjection to subject one's self, obey to submit to one's control to yield to one's admonition or advice to obey, be subject - A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
Nothing very 'questioning' implied in (ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;).
You are probably right though that many Christians preferred to lose their lives rather than rebel against authorities and Paul was certainly one of them.
I don't think it is possible to wriggle out of the pedantic universality of hypotassō though, as if the author is tacitly leaving a get out clause in case Christians find themselves under the heel of the Third Reich or on The Normandy Invasion beaches. That was some big time lack of 'submission to a self appointed even Satanically appointed authority', I'd say.
Rom.13:1-6 does not in any way cover that eventuality.
As enigmatic as ever Martin. Just what are you disagreeing with?
(ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) in Rom.13:1 is the same (ὑποτάσσω hypotassō;) that he used at Rom.10:3
If both were Paul, it kinda shows that, as far as he was concerned, there was little difference between submission to God's Law and submission to Roman Law. It amounted in the end to the same thing because the Roman authorities were instituted by God. According to Rom.13:1-6.
And this is really showing your confusion - if Paul wasn't 'rebel(ling) against authorities', why would the authorities be executing him? The point is precisely that on the one hand Paul was not giving unquestioning obedience to the authorities, but on the other hand, he was also not rebelling but 'submitting to/recognising' the authority of the human ruler and accepting martyrdom because of his necessary disobedience to the rulers in order to obey God.
As opposed to the word used by Peter for obedience to God, peitharcheo ('peitho'/obey plus 'arch-'/ruler), the tasso group of verbs does allow 'wriggle room' for a submission that isn't blind obedience.
From a biblical viewpoint even Hitler is in fact in a sense 'appointed by God' - or do you think Hitler is able to boss God around? But also from a biblical viewpoint, the Christian is not required to blindly obey Hitler - but is required not to militarily rebel against such a ruler.
Lighten up kid. Give Paul a break. I don't do textism. Unless it's Ren and Stimpy. You know, something important. But obsession over words, nuance, meaning, feel with their exploding factorial permutations is only fit for such... whimsy.
Have you figured out 13:3-4 yet? Did people who did what is good have nothing to fear from Hitler?
You said How do the verses above serve the argument you think Paul is making?[/quote]
I think 'For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad et al' is meant as grounds adduced in support of the thesis in the previous two verses or the subsequent verse about doing what is right for conscience' sake. Paul expects his audience to agree that, either in general or when exercising their proper functions, the authorities punish criminals and don't punish people who are doing good. Therefore, that being how they work, we owe them allegiance for conscience' sake as well as out of a desire to avoid punishment. (The questions I take to be strictly rhetorical and addressed to a generic 'you' not the specific audience.) If he means the bit about not wanting to be afraid of the authorities as practical advice as to how to behave then the bit about conscience doesn't follow.
This looks to me as if you're preparing a No True Pauline epistles argument.
(I'm not assuming that all of 'Paul' is by Paul. But the core letters are generally accepted as by him and the only passage in them for which I'm aware of a good reason to consider interpolated is the couple of verses in 1 Cor 14 about women having to keep silent in church. There is I believe some question about whether 2 Corinthians was written as one letter with all the passages in the order in which we have them, but even passages that are clearly part of the same argument contain grammatical and logical leaps.)
.......But note the different contexts. In Acts 5 Peter is not addressing the Roman authorities but the Jewish religious authorities with whom he had shared values regarding the primacy of the God's law. That position was a source of constant tension between imperial rule and the Jews, which snapped in 70 AD because it was unsustainable. Romans 13: 1-6, as I've argued earlier, was a much more sensible and realistic approach for a weak Christian minority to take.
I think I understand your reading, Dafyd. Paul is saying that the functions of earthly authority, the offices, have been instituted by God; even pagans can exercise these functions properly, and generally do in that time and place, so Christians should obey the authorities for reasons of both pragmatism and conscience.
But he doesn't actually say anything specifically about the authorities being pagan, and never even gestures at the possibility of authorities behaving unjustly. You've suggested that could be because the authorities facing his audience were performing with "reasonable integrity", but I'd be surprised to learn they were so good that motivated rebels couldn't complain of any injustices that would prompt at least some kind of recognition of imperfection from Paul. And if the municipal Roman authorities really were such obvious paragons of virtue that both Paul and his audience take their integrity for granted, what kind of crazy things do we imagine the rebels are up to? "Down with good governance and the fair execution of just laws!"
I think you may have the most reasonable explanation (barring the elastic escape hatch of interpolation), but that still doesn't mean it's very convincing. Obviously we're greatly handicapped by not having more information about what prompted this passage. It's kind of like a really unsatisfying metaphorical jigsaw puzzle; instead of having most of the picture and guessing about what the few pieces missing look like, we've got a few really weird pieces that look like they fit together, but its not at all obvious what surrounding puzzle pieces could be that would both fit with the ones we have and also make them seem less weird than they appear by themselves.
Yes, it was a serious question. I was not just trying to trip you up.
Before deciding who is at fault if some of what appears in Paul's letters is 'unclear and unsystematic', we would first have to be fairly sure it actually is Paul that wrote it. Some epistles are unquestionably genuine Paul in the estimation of almost all scholars. That would be a good place to start examining 'unclarity or unsystematicalness' (excuse the coining). Once a real feel has been grasped of Paul's style and usage of language, idioms and historical detail that might only have come from Paul, then the other letters could be examined for anomalies, or even improbabilities. (Like terms being used that would have been unlikely to be in currency at the time Paul would actually have been writing them).
If actual Paul is 'unclear and unsystematic' occasionally, (and I am by no means counting that possibility out), what are the implications for scriptural inerrancy. Are they any worse than accepting that certain bits in Paul, might not be Paul at all.
The Roman General that oversaw all this became Emperor after Nero died and Rome had 2 years civil war and 4 successive Emperors, each usually having the previous one murdered.
Far from presenting a picture epitomized by Rom.13:1-6, It makes Rom.13:1-6 look like a desperate attempt to look loyal to ANY authority, which ever one happens to have grabbed power for itself but claims it is instituted by God.
Rom.13:1-6, depending on when it was written, may simply be the equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" scrap of paper with which he tried to appease Hitler.
That's what mean though. Broad consensus means some might place it near enough to 66 for some foresighted fellow like Paul to have sensed the way the wind was blowing and decided that overstating the case, (secular authorities wise), was the best option for protecting the church.
Hence the possibly tongue in cheek, "Peace in our time" cautious advice.
I think you're better off with your interpolation theory.
I think the immediate circumstance was the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius rather than any foreknowledge of the Jewish revolt during the AD 60s. The date is not precisely known. Claudius, however, was emperor from 41 AD to 54 AD, and estimated dates for the expulsion are circa 50 AD, which neatly coincide for an epistle written in the mid-AD 50s. (Previously there had been expulsions in 139 BC and 19 AD).
Note Acts 18: 1-2: "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome."
So do I.
Well spotted Kwesi. I had never noticed that.