Dave W: 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.
The argument, Dave W, is not that the authorities were abusive. Rather they were responding to a troublesome ethnic group whose monotheistic religion found it difficult to accept the legitimacy of pagan rule. As we have discussed, that was leading to a catastrophic denouement. Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a sect of Judaism for obvious reasons, and was, therefore, exposed to measures directed against Jews, as the verse from Acts 18 indicates. The writer of Romans 13: 1-6, is arguing that Christians should accept non-Christian rule as legitimate, even approved by God, and that believers ought not to adopt the mind-set of the increasingly rebellious Jews.
Dave W: 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.
The argument, Dave W, is not that the authorities were abusive. Rather they were responding to a troublesome ethnic group whose monotheistic religion found it difficult to accept the legitimacy of pagan rule. As we have discussed, that was leading to a catastrophic denouement. Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a sect of Judaism for obvious reasons, and was, therefore, exposed to measures directed against Jews, as the verse from Acts 18 indicates. The writer of Romans 13: 1-6, is arguing that Christians should accept non-Christian rule as legitimate, even approved by God, and that believers ought not to adopt the mind-set of the increasingly rebellious Jews.
Subsequent events leading up to, including and the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem would give support to this idea. If I were Paul I certainly would not want my churches to be lumped together with a Jewish revolt against Roman Authority.
Dave W: 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.
The argument, Dave W, is not that the authorities were abusive.
Rather they were responding to a troublesome ethnic group whose monotheistic religion found it difficult to accept the legitimacy of pagan rule. As we have discussed, that was leading to a catastrophic denouement. Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a sect of Judaism for obvious reasons, and was, therefore, exposed to measures directed against Jews, as the verse from Acts 18 indicates. The writer of Romans 13: 1-6, is arguing that Christians should accept non-Christian rule as legitimate, even approved by God, and that believers ought not to adopt the mind-set of the increasingly rebellious Jews.
Perhaps. This assumes behavior Paul is supposed to be criticizing (Roman Christians are refusing to obey non-Christian rulers) about which we have no clear statement, but it's plausible enough, and the verse from Acts 18 provides some believable support for the idea that Paul may have feared rebellious contagion from the surrounding community.
But we're still left with the problem (or I am, anyway): why such an extreme, over-the-top endorsement of the divine institution of all authorities, who only punish the wicked and commend the good? Surely his audience knows about the injustice of bad rulers; there are probably plenty of local examples, and the OT is full of stories. Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't. (And we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself.)
[Dave W] : Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't.
Yes, and then know there is a document incriminating him, offering proof that he thinks the Roman Authorities are 'flawed'. Not a good idea, with the likes on Nero in control. Maybe Nero wasn't boss right then but I'm sure Paul would have seen which way the wind could blow.
Dave W But we're still left with the problem (or I am, anyway): why such an extreme, over-the-top endorsement of the divine institution of all authorities, who only punish the wicked and commend the good? Surely his audience knows about the injustice of bad rulers; there are probably plenty of local examples, and the OT is full of stories. Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't. (And we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself.)
I agree that Romans 13:1-6 is OTT, which might support the view that it's an interpolation- though I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment; and concur that the writer (Paul?) might have better written: "Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws." Respecting the OT, however, I would suggest its aptness is problematic, because the problem between the Jews and the Romans was caused by the difficulty in squaring its perspective with being part of a pagan empire not subject to Jehovah and the Torah, which is precisely what this passage is addressing. The OT is the problem not the solution.
I'm not entirely clear as to what you are referring when you state: "As we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself." Which examples are you recalling? I get the impression from Acts that Paul is pleased to be a Roman citizen, and is happy to use it to protect himself from petty local jurisdictions and persecutions, culminating in his "appeal to Caesar," which facilitated his journey to Rome. If the reference is to his martyrdom, then do we not regard it as an abuse of power in executing an innocent man, not a rebellious one?
Dave W But we're still left with the problem (or I am, anyway): why such an extreme, over-the-top endorsement of the divine institution of all authorities, who only punish the wicked and commend the good? Surely his audience knows about the injustice of bad rulers; there are probably plenty of local examples, and the OT is full of stories. Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't. (And we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself.)
I agree that Romans 13:1-6 is OTT, which might support the view that it's an interpolation- though I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment; and concur that the writer (Paul?) might have better written: "Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws." Respecting the OT, however, I would suggest its aptness is problematic, because the problem between the Jews and the Romans was caused by the difficulty in squaring its perspective with being part of a pagan empire not subject to Jehovah and the Torah, which is precisely what this passage is addressing. The OT is the problem not the solution.
I'm not entirely clear as to what you are referring when you state: "As we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself." Which examples are you recalling? I get the impression from Acts that Paul is pleased to be a Roman citizen, and is happy to use it to protect himself from petty local jurisdictions and persecutions, culminating in his "appeal to Caesar," which facilitated his journey to Rome. If the reference is to his martyrdom, then do we not regard it as an abuse of power in executing an innocent man, not a rebellious one?
There is also the possible fact that Paul's appeal may have been upheld and he then evangelised Spain and returned later to Rome to be subsequently executed by decapitation on entirely different charges, in a much more hostile era. Acts stops before any of that actually did or did not happen. Acts leaves us just waiting for his appel to come up and tells us nothing about his death, or when exactly it occurred.
RdrEmCofE There is also the possible fact that Paul's appeal may have been upheld and he then evangelised Spain and returned later to Rome to be subsequently executed by decapitation on entirely different charges, in a much more hostile era. Acts stops before any of that actually did or did not happen. Acts leaves us just waiting for his appel to come up and tells us nothing about his death, or when exactly it occurred.
There seems to be a notion afoot that the Jews in Rome had trouble with the pagan / polytheistic ethos of the place. I accept that they had a name in the city as troublemakers, but is there any evidence that this was the reason?
They had, after all, lived in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt for - probably - centuries, and there were substantial Jewish populations in many Hellenic towns and cities as well as in Babylon and elsewhere in Parthia, where they seemed to lead lives that were peaceable enough.
Given that the Greeks were a byword for atheism in the ancient world, and that most educated Romans seem to have taken the Olympian gods about as seriously as a modern reader treats his daily horoscope - interesting enough, but certainly not to be relied on in an emergency - it seems unlikely to me that the Jews in Rome were especially exercised about the devout religious habits of their neighbours.
I think that in these matters 'liberal' refers to an approach to government articulated by Locke and practically expressed in the constitution of the United States. It is characterised by the belief that governments are constructed by citizens to achieve certain ends, and that their exercise of power is constrained by that contract. Failure to adhere to the contract justifies rebellion. A second, and associated strand, is a belief in natural human rights, which governments ought not to transgress and, indeed, should promote. Not everyone, including myself, adhere to such a belief or beliefs.
IMO Martin54 is correct to say that the criticisms of Romans 13:1-6 arisen from modern (often unconscious) assumptions about natural rights, but mistaken to assume that such views are universally held amongst those with a western education.
I don't think Chamberlain was in a desperate attempt to appease Hitler. What he actually did was deliberately talk to Hitler in order to stall him so that Britain could rearm against the inevitable attacks from Germany. Had we gone to war immediately we would never have survived. Chamberlain made an excellent move.
... Given that the Greeks were a byword for atheism in the ancient world, and that most educated Romans seem to have taken the Olympian gods about as seriously as a modern reader treats his daily horoscope - interesting enough, but certainly not to be relied on in an emergency - it seems unlikely to me that the Jews in Rome were especially exercised about the devout religious habits of their neighbours.
It's often said but are you sure that is true? The impression one gets from what those who dig a bit deeper into the classical world is that even if that had become the case with some of the civic religion of the city of Rome, the culture was rife with superstition to a degree that we would find almost impossible to understand, yet alone relate to, these days.
The impression one gets from what those who dig a bit deeper into the classical world is that even if that had become the case with some of the civic religion of the city of Rome, the culture was rife with superstition to a degree that we would find almost impossible to understand, yet alone relate to, these days.
Which is the source of the pogroms against the Christians. If they don't sacrifice to the emperor, we may lose the next war, or fall into civil disarray, or name your catastrophe-du-jour. This superstitious streak was so strong it reached down through the centuries and infected one of the greatest modern historians of the Empire, Gibbon.
Martin54 And Kwesi, I said most. Here. Not in Western society as a whole. Could be wrong!
Fair enough, Martin. I'm not really in dispute with you. I agree that much of the critical comment on Romans 13: 1-6 is based on assumptions no less questionable than those they critique. What we need to measure the Romans passage against are contemporary Roman understandings of the nature of political legitimacy. For example, what was understood by "authority" and "authorities"? It may well be, for example, that "tyrants" and "tyranny" are not to be understood as "authorities" in terms of the epistle.
... Given that the Greeks were a byword for atheism in the ancient world, and that most educated Romans seem to have taken the Olympian gods about as seriously as a modern reader treats his daily horoscope - interesting enough, but certainly not to be relied on in an emergency - it seems unlikely to me that the Jews in Rome were especially exercised about the devout religious habits of their neighbours.
It's often said but are you sure that is true? The impression one gets from what those who dig a bit deeper into the classical world is that even if that had become the case with some of the civic religion of the city of Rome, the culture was rife with superstition to a degree that we would find almost impossible to understand, yet alone relate to, these days.
Superstition, yes, certainly: put on your shoes in the correct order, be careful if there's thunder on the left hand, and so on and so forth. And there was an enormous amount of civic religion that was practised simply because it was part of civic society, including the various rituals of the Vestals and the Flamens, the burning of a pinch of incense to this god or that, and so on.
A typical attitude seems to have been: pick yourself a god from the enormous pantheon, perhaps on the recommendation of a friend, and see if prayers to him work; if they do, build an altar to him showing that you willingly and deservedly fulfil your vow, otherwise try another one next time. And put DM (Dis Manibus, 'To The Gods Of The Underworld') on a memorial with no more real religious fervour than putting RIP on a tombstone involves these days.
Certainly a dining club dedicated to Bacchus would have had an eager membership, with an absolute promise of good parties among the elite in this life and - who knows - just maybe a chance at eternity with the maenads afterwards.
But religious belief in the sense that a Jew or Christian would understand it would I suspect have been a fairly limited occurrence, and would sometimes be seen by society at large as a threat to business rather than anything else - as Paul found out at Ephesus.
Martin54 And Kwesi, I said most. Here. Not in Western society as a whole. Could be wrong!
Fair enough, Martin. I'm not really in dispute with you. I agree that much of the critical comment on Romans 13: 1-6 is based on assumptions no less questionable than those they critique. What we need to measure the Romans passage against are contemporary Roman understandings of the nature of political legitimacy. For example, what was understood by "authority" and "authorities"? It may well be, for example, that "tyrants" and "tyranny" are not to be understood as "authorities" in terms of the epistle.
Fair yourself Kwesi. And exactly, it didn't matter who was Emperor. Paul lived halfway through a thousand years of Roman Law. Or a fifth of the way if you count civil law as a continuation of Roman. This was a huge underpinning of daily life, with visible de facto often slave police under local magistrates; where the civil authority ended the army began.
Dave W But we're still left with the problem (or I am, anyway): why such an extreme, over-the-top endorsement of the divine institution of all authorities, who only punish the wicked and commend the good? Surely his audience knows about the injustice of bad rulers; there are probably plenty of local examples, and the OT is full of stories. Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't. (And we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself.)
I agree that Romans 13:1-6 is OTT, which might support the view that it's an interpolation- though I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment; and concur that the writer (Paul?) might have better written: "Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws." Respecting the OT, however, I would suggest its aptness is problematic, because the problem between the Jews and the Romans was caused by the difficulty in squaring its perspective with being part of a pagan empire not subject to Jehovah and the Torah, which is precisely what this passage is addressing. The OT is the problem not the solution.
I don't understand your objection to what I wrote. I meant that Paul's paean to the wonderfulness of all existing authorities stands in jarring contrast to the many OT stories of bad rulers (pagan or otherwise), with which his audience might well be familiar.
I'm not entirely clear as to what you are referring when you state: "As we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself." Which examples are you recalling? I get the impression from Acts that Paul is pleased to be a Roman citizen, and is happy to use it to protect himself from petty local jurisdictions and persecutions, culminating in his "appeal to Caesar," which facilitated his journey to Rome. If the reference is to his martyrdom, then do we not regard it as an abuse of power in executing an innocent man, not a rebellious one?
I stand corrected. The contradiction (if there is one) between the present passage and Paul's future life would then lie in the authorities' betrayal of his blithe confidence in their justice, not in a hypocritical failure to follow his own call to obey them.
It's a very interesting question and Romans 13 could explain reluctance of Liberation and Feminist Theologians, at least initially, to use Paul as a biblical resource. A paradox which should be noted is that Paul uses imperial language to describe Jesus in the letter opening, something that would only be viewed as subversive if the letter was ever read by Roman authorities. Viewed through this prism Paul's advice in Romans 13 might suggest he was more concerned with avoiding trouble from Rome but simultaneously denying that Rome was the proper yardstick of behaviour.
A discussion has sprung up on the ‘Quiero a mi Mami’ thread about the correct interpretation of Romans 13 as cited by Jeff Sessions:
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. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 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; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
I’m going to attempt to summarise the arguments so far rather than fill this OP with reams of quotes, so I apologise for any distortions and simplifications.
Dave W argues that the passage shows divinely sanctioned authoritarianism, and the proper response to it is to repudiate it rather than to try and explain it away.
Enoch says that a.) it’s a warning not to consider yourself above the law of the land just because you’re under grace; b.) it’s a pragmatic warning to keep your heads down; c.) a participative democracy like the US is predicated on citizens’ engagement, which includes citizens’ opposition to current policy, so if citizens oppose a particular policy then they are doing what the state intends, not rebelling against it.
Penny S points to a hypothesis that the whole passage is sarcastic.
I have observed that the author of that passage was jailed multiple times by the authorities, so whatever he meant by it, it wasn't "The government is always right" or even "Breaking the law is always wrong".
Other thoughts?
I've always thought that the words of Jesus adequately explained when He said: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
In my Law and Economics class we read arguments from legal scholars about whether we should punish people for violating the constitution when they felt that their conscience (let's say, in the case of a Defense Secretary ignoring an order from the President to move nuclear weapons onto the battlefield) or the need to save the country (as in President Lincoln's suspension of the freedom of the press and other rights) required it, or whether we should allow for provisions of the constitution to be deemed "suspended" in exceptional circumstances? Which of the two is more dangerous, a strict legalism that is open to abuse, or loopholes in our rights and in the rule of law that could also be abused?
It's not entirely analogous to Christians' obedience to the legal authorities, but this discussion reminded me of it.
Comments
The argument, Dave W, is not that the authorities were abusive. Rather they were responding to a troublesome ethnic group whose monotheistic religion found it difficult to accept the legitimacy of pagan rule. As we have discussed, that was leading to a catastrophic denouement. Christianity was regarded by the Romans as a sect of Judaism for obvious reasons, and was, therefore, exposed to measures directed against Jews, as the verse from Acts 18 indicates. The writer of Romans 13: 1-6, is arguing that Christians should accept non-Christian rule as legitimate, even approved by God, and that believers ought not to adopt the mind-set of the increasingly rebellious Jews.
Subsequent events leading up to, including and the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem would give support to this idea. If I were Paul I certainly would not want my churches to be lumped together with a Jewish revolt against Roman Authority.
But we're still left with the problem (or I am, anyway): why such an extreme, over-the-top endorsement of the divine institution of all authorities, who only punish the wicked and commend the good? Surely his audience knows about the injustice of bad rulers; there are probably plenty of local examples, and the OT is full of stories. Paul could have said Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws - but he doesn't. (And we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself.)
You mean, have I stopped beating my wife?
Yes, and then know there is a document incriminating him, offering proof that he thinks the Roman Authorities are 'flawed'. Not a good idea, with the likes on Nero in control.
I agree that Romans 13:1-6 is OTT, which might support the view that it's an interpolation- though I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment; and concur that the writer (Paul?) might have better written: "Christians should obey the authorities despite their flaws." Respecting the OT, however, I would suggest its aptness is problematic, because the problem between the Jews and the Romans was caused by the difficulty in squaring its perspective with being part of a pagan empire not subject to Jehovah and the Torah, which is precisely what this passage is addressing. The OT is the problem not the solution.
I'm not entirely clear as to what you are referring when you state: "As we know that in the future, he's not going to obey them himself." Which examples are you recalling? I get the impression from Acts that Paul is pleased to be a Roman citizen, and is happy to use it to protect himself from petty local jurisdictions and persecutions, culminating in his "appeal to Caesar," which facilitated his journey to Rome. If the reference is to his martyrdom, then do we not regard it as an abuse of power in executing an innocent man, not a rebellious one?
There is also the possible fact that Paul's appeal may have been upheld and he then evangelised Spain and returned later to Rome to be subsequently executed by decapitation on entirely different charges, in a much more hostile era. Acts stops before any of that actually did or did not happen. Acts leaves us just waiting for his appel to come up and tells us nothing about his death, or when exactly it occurred.
Exactly so!
What's with the 'our'? Are we all liberal and weird in here then?
You might be, buddy, but dispense with the 'rich' and substitute 'comparitively rich compared to a Bangladeshi', for me.
They had, after all, lived in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt for - probably - centuries, and there were substantial Jewish populations in many Hellenic towns and cities as well as in Babylon and elsewhere in Parthia, where they seemed to lead lives that were peaceable enough.
Given that the Greeks were a byword for atheism in the ancient world, and that most educated Romans seem to have taken the Olympian gods about as seriously as a modern reader treats his daily horoscope - interesting enough, but certainly not to be relied on in an emergency - it seems unlikely to me that the Jews in Rome were especially exercised about the devout religious habits of their neighbours.
IMO Martin54 is correct to say that the criticisms of Romans 13:1-6 arisen from modern (often unconscious) assumptions about natural rights, but mistaken to assume that such views are universally held amongst those with a western education.
And Kwesi, I said most. Here. Not in Western society as a whole. Could be wrong!
Fair enough, Martin. I'm not really in dispute with you. I agree that much of the critical comment on Romans 13: 1-6 is based on assumptions no less questionable than those they critique. What we need to measure the Romans passage against are contemporary Roman understandings of the nature of political legitimacy. For example, what was understood by "authority" and "authorities"? It may well be, for example, that "tyrants" and "tyranny" are not to be understood as "authorities" in terms of the epistle.
Superstition, yes, certainly: put on your shoes in the correct order, be careful if there's thunder on the left hand, and so on and so forth. And there was an enormous amount of civic religion that was practised simply because it was part of civic society, including the various rituals of the Vestals and the Flamens, the burning of a pinch of incense to this god or that, and so on.
A typical attitude seems to have been: pick yourself a god from the enormous pantheon, perhaps on the recommendation of a friend, and see if prayers to him work; if they do, build an altar to him showing that you willingly and deservedly fulfil your vow, otherwise try another one next time. And put DM (Dis Manibus, 'To The Gods Of The Underworld') on a memorial with no more real religious fervour than putting RIP on a tombstone involves these days.
Certainly a dining club dedicated to Bacchus would have had an eager membership, with an absolute promise of good parties among the elite in this life and - who knows - just maybe a chance at eternity with the maenads afterwards.
But religious belief in the sense that a Jew or Christian would understand it would I suspect have been a fairly limited occurrence, and would sometimes be seen by society at large as a threat to business rather than anything else - as Paul found out at Ephesus.
Fair yourself Kwesi. And exactly, it didn't matter who was Emperor. Paul lived halfway through a thousand years of Roman Law. Or a fifth of the way if you count civil law as a continuation of Roman. This was a huge underpinning of daily life, with visible de facto often slave police under local magistrates; where the civil authority ended the army began.
I've always thought that the words of Jesus adequately explained when He said: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
It's not entirely analogous to Christians' obedience to the legal authorities, but this discussion reminded me of it.