Leelee

Romans 13

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good.

This passage is obviously wrong. It's astounding that Paul was clueless enough to believe something like this, particularly verse 3. JP Holding tried to explain this away by saying that Paul was writing during a time when the Roman government was rather benign and he didn't realize that there would later be major persecutions of Christians. But that explanation does not work because:

1: His writings were supposedly inspired by God who WOULD know that not all governments are just and good.

2. He himself should have been very aware that governments have been cruel to people who were good. Jesus, the leader of his own friggin' religion, was crucified by Roman authorities, for goodness sake! In addition, there are numerous examples in the OT of righteous people being persecuted by corrupt authorities. The Hebrews in Egypt and Daniel and his two friends in Babylon are just a few.

karlmarx

That passage is obviously a God-send to the established ruling authorities, and so clearly socially reactionary, that I wonder whether vested interests had a hand in it. I'd be keen to hear what others have to say about it - whether it's genuine, and if so, what on earth drove Paul to write this. I can just imagine Constantine hearing about this passage and wetting his pants in excitement.

A Stable Flux

The passage is agreeably blunt and a lousy argument (I'm referring to not just Romans 13:1-4, but Romans 13:1-7). God made everything, authority exists, therefore authority was made by God and is therefore good. I think the passage is an interpolation, that is a later insertion not written by Paul. I checked out this idea and there is a lot written about this passage being inauthentic. The main article I read is here.

The evidence for the passage being a later addition roughly are:
* Latter parts of Romans are largely considered an inauthentic later addition (cf. chapter 16)
* The passage is self-contained and seemingly 'alien' to it's context. This has allowed political groups to exploit the existence of this passage in the Bible, which is conceivably why it was planted there
* The passage is not only alien to it's context but interrupts the context
* The passage makes no reference to love (that is agape: ἀγάπη agápē)
* Immediately after the passage it says "owe no one anything except to love one another" (this is the translation in the link). I'm guessing the passage is "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8 NIV translation)
* 3 words only appear here in everything declared authentically Pauline, with 4 other words appearing only once in Paul's authentic letters
* There is no reference to Christ, or anything suggesting the passage is Christian or Jewish. It has been suggested the passage is Stoic and was inserted by a Stoic teacher
* Perhaps most importantly, no where else Paul honours governmental authority. In 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 Paul even advises people not to use the courts as they are controlled by the "unrighteous"

In my opinion the passage is a self-serving entry by politically interest people, which like many things in the Bible generated stupid acquiescence. The passage itself is a stupid argument, as I stated above. Could every government or powers be right? How could this be true as these powers have opposed each other so many times? They couldn't both be right, if they war each other. Also it's hard to imagine it being Jewish or religiously conceived considering the many political powers which displaced and neglected the Jews. I find the passage to be just another instance of the unholy and foolish junk which got into that jumble of interests called the Bible.

spamandham

Romans 13:1-4 are derived from Jude 8-10, Deut. 32:8, and Psalm 82, according to RM Price in "The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)", 2006 hardback edition, pg. 416. Since these are not "Paul's" original thoughts, the question is, why is he stating them here?

A Stable Flux

Very strong words "are derived from". They are like "this is fact" or "that = true". The better question is, how can we reason Paul wrote this passage? The answer "because it's in the Bible" is as reasonable as the run of the mill Christian, whom I don't have much to say to. I don't think there is good reason to believe Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7. It is possible the redactor was influenced by Jude 8-10, Deut. 32:8 and Psalm 82, but considering the points I outlined before I don't think it is reasonable to believe Paul wrote this passage.

andrewcriddle

Whether one approves or disapproves of the argument, it seems likely to date from a period before the Roman authorities were hostile to Christians as such.

IE treating it as a post-Pauline (and hence Post-Nero) addition may cause more problems than it solves.

(If it is Pauline, then Paul may have seen the Roman authorities more as a protection from Jewish persecution than as a threat in themselves.)

Andrew Criddle

A Stable Flux

Apologises, it's late in my part of the world and I'm not getting your point. What's problematic about saying the passage was written not by Paul but by some later redactor? Paul in my mind just seems like a religious fanatic who is completely unconcerned with non-spiritual things like government. Along with the points I made above, I can only conceive of the passage not being written by Paul.

Chili

It is obviously right because the aim of the law is to bring judgement on ourself and stand convicted before God. What Paul is trying to say here is that there is no place in heaven for righteous people but only for courageous people that are willing to go against the estabilished stream of consciusness to set the inner man free.

andrewcriddle

What I was saying is that the writer does not seem to be concerned with the specific problem of being punished by the Roman authorities just for being a Christian.

Compare 1 Peter which combines advice to be subject to the Emperor and his officials and avoid getting into trouble, with encouragement to be proud of suffering for being a Christian.

This at least sugests that the passage in Romans was written before the Roman authorities started punishing people for being Christians, ie written during Paul's lifetime rather than after his death.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, wasn't Paul and Peter executed in Rome, according to Eusebius in Church History. And didn't Tacitus in Annals claimed some people called christians had their leader Christus executed by Pilate.

And further in Acts, "Paul" and Silas were beaten and jailed for preaching to Romans about Jesus and casting out devils.

Acts 16.19-24 ...... It would appear that Christians of any doctrine, i.e. the doctrine of Christus, Chrestus, Cerinthus or Jesus, were persecuted from the 1st to the 4th century.

Parts of Romans 13 may have been written in the 4th century, that is, after Constantine almgamated with Eusebius.