punk77

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

My interpetation of v3 is that it says that rulers' orders are to be followed as they are 'good' no matter what. Whilst anybody can see that such a thing is patently wrong that is not what v3 is saying.

As an aside (I don't really know too much about biblical history so forgive me if I am just showing my ignorance ) but SC Carlson wrote '...it is more like interpreting Rom 13 in light of Acts 5:29...'. Would all followers in the early times of christianity have had access to all the available biblical texts so that they would be able to 'interpret' one in relation to another or did some churches have more/different texts than others?

gstafleu

Still, it is a bit strange. 13:1 seems to be rather clear in saying that all authority derives from god. It doesn't say that only that authority that is ordained by god counts, it claims that all authority is (by definition) subordinate to god: "hupo tou theou tetagmenai eisin." That means something like having been put in place by god, doesn't it? That reasoning follows straightforwardly from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. But it is a bit weird for Paul who on occasion carries on against the circumcisionists and "some from James", a bunch of authorities if there ever was one.

And then in 13:3 there are these "good works." Wasn't it a Jewish concept that you have to work at the law? Paul seems to often go against standard Jewish ideas. Is this really Paul speaking?

gstafleu

To expand on this a little, 13:1-7 feels a bit out of place. Just before it, 12:9-21 provides a list of what good Christians should do. Basically be nice to your neighbor. The only thing about authority there is that you shouldn't avenge yourself because "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (12:19)

Then comes 13:1-7, which is all about knuckling under to earthly authorities because they have been put in place by God. And what's more, in 13:4 the right to vengeance is given to the authorities: "[...f]or it [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain. It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrondoer." That is a bit strange, given that just before it we, earthly persons, are exhorted not to exact vengeance because it belongs to God. All of a suddden this does not go for earthly persons who are authorities? Very convenient. For the authorities. Especially as 13:7 then tells us to, hold for it, pay taxes to these authorities!

13:8-10 then returns back to the original theme of loving one another, not adultering, not murdering not stealing, the usual things we know good Christians should (or should not) do. If we excise 13:1-7 we have a coherent narrative. With 13:1-7 in place it seems we have to stumble across an obstacle before we can proceed.

Does anyone else smell a rat here?

S.C.Carlson

No, since the various books of the NT was written at different times in different places, the earliest Christians obviously could not do this. Rather, they interpreted Paul's letters in light of what other Christian authorities (the apostles and their successors) were teaching.

Stephen

Anonimus

Assuming that "Peter and the other apostles" includes Paul, comparing Acts 5:29 and Romans 13 serves only to dig the hole deeper because then you've got a very direct Biblical contradiction; in Romans 13, Paul states that we are to unquestioningly obey our rulers, for they are ordained by God, whereas in Acts 5 he and the other apostles clearly acknowledge that the Sanhedrin is in disagreement with God's will. And this isn't a matter of Paul elaborating on what he said earlier, either; it's a matter of him expressing two completely irreconcilable views.

punk77

Many thanks for the reply.

I did realise that '... the various books were written at different times in different places...' but as Romans was written (57 AD?) before Acts (65 AD?) according to one site that I had looked at (http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html God must have left the early Christians without help for at least 8 years .

Acts 5:29 looks as though someone (Paul?) was trying to rewrite/clarify what was meant to have been 'divinely inspired' (according to what I was taught to believe) which shouldn't have to happen if God had dictated it in the first place. If the early Christians had 'other authorities' from earlier on to guide them then Acts 5:29 is superfluous.

Diogenes the Cynic

Acts was written well after 65 CE. It was more like late 90's or early 2nd century. The site you linked to itemizes a lot of Christian tradition but is not representative of actual credible scholarship. I would strongly recommend www.earlychristianwritings.com as a much more releiable source of information.

S.C.Carlson

The curious part is that the linked site gives a more responsible 75-90 range than what the poster stated (though I would extend the final part of the range by at least 10 years to better reflect critical opinion).

Stephen

Chris Weimer

I would place Luke post Josephus, so perhaps at the very earliest 80 and extending up to around 100 CE.

Malachi151

I've alwasy asumed that this, and other segments like it ("give unto Caesar", etc...) were added much later after Christianity had become the official State religion.

Is there any evidence for this, that there passages were later additions?