http://ext.sagepub.

com/

The Expository Times

http://ext.sagepub.com/content/121/8/383
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0014524610364453
2010 121: 383 The Expository Times
Ron Cassidy
The Politicization of Paul: Romans 13:1-7 in Recent Discussion

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: The Expository Times Additional services and information for

http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ext.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from

The Politicization of Paul:
Romans 13:1-7 in Recent
Discussion
Canon Dr Ron Cassidy
Canon Emeritus of Manchester Cathedral
Abstract
To those who regard the Letter to the Romans as part of a thoroughgoing critique of Roman power
and ideology on the part of Paul, the first seven verses of Chapter 13 represent a major problem of
interpretation, since they appear to represent endorsement rather than criticism of the prevailing
political authorities. This paper looks at the way the text has been handled by those involved in
the debate, as well as making some suggestions as to how the passage should be understood in its
context.
Keywords
politicization, Paul, Rome, Empire, authorities, interpretation, apologetic
Corresponding author:
Canon Dr Ron Cassidy
Email: roncass_99@yahoo.co.uk
The Expository Times
121(8) 383 389
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0014524610364453
http://ext.sagepub.com
A popular trend that can be identified in contempo-
rary study of Paul is that which sees the Apostle as
a critic of the Roman Empire, the dominant political
power in the contemporary world in which Paul
lived. Some enthusiasts for this view go as far as to
suggest that Paul formulated his whole Gospel in
antithesis to the Roman Imperial Cult and its ideol-
ogy. In the United States the impulse for this move-
ment came from the increasing concern that since
the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the
American Government, representing the only
remaining Superpower, was acting in an increas-
ingly imperialistic manner. The response of New
Testament scholars who shared that concern was to
draw parallels with their Government and the
Roman Imperial Power, the authority that provided
the political context for the New Testament writ-
ings. Scholars such as Richard Horsley, Dieter
Georgi and Neil Elliott among others began to look
for an implicit critique of such imperialism in the
New Testament that could in turn be applied to their
own political setting.
In the United Kingdom this trend in scholarship is
associated chiefly with N. T. Wright, the Bishop of
Durham. Drawing much more fully on the Old
Testament background than his American counterparts,
Wright sees it as a natural corollary of the belief that
Yahweh is Lord of all the world to conclude that this
encompasses the political realm as much as any realm.
When therefore any political entity such as Rome
begins making extravagant claims about sovereignty,
the Christian can but respond by proclaiming the
supremacy of God, particularly as established by the
work of Jesus. In the New Testament, Wright argues, we
find what we expect to find, that Jesus Christ is Lord,
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
384 The Expository Times 121(8)
could write quite so positively about the authorities
in Rome.
2
To those, therefore, who regard Romans as part of
a thoroughgoing critique of Roman power and ideol-
ogy on the part of Paul, Romans 13:1-7 represents a
major difficulty, as it appears to represent an endorse-
ment rather than a criticism of the prevailing political
authorities. The problem is all the more acute since
this endorsement appears to stem not from expedi-
ency, but from theological conviction. Some scholars
seek to solve the problem by suggesting the text is an
insertion in the passage, and therefore not representa-
tive of Pauls authentic thought at all.
3
These schol-
ars point out that it appears to interrupt the flow of
the argument, and that if it were removed, 12:21-13:8
would link up quite smoothly. This view is, however,
represented only by a persistent minority, since
strong links can be demonstrated with the surround-
ing verses, and no convincing redactional purpose
has yet been suggested for its insertion.
Traditional Interpretations of
the Passage
Before venturing onto a brief sketch of the chief
ways in which this passage has been handled, it is
worth noting how Augustine many years ago set out
the parameters for the discussion:
The distinction between the absolute commit-
ment to serve God and the provisional, qualified
assent to earthly authorities is quite clear. The
Heavenly City, or that part of it that sojourns
on earth, makes use of the earthly peace only
because it must, until the mortal condition that
necessitates it passes away. But the Earthly City
has some philosophers whose doctrine is con-
demned by the divine teaching. The Heavenly
City has in this matter to dissent and become
obnoxious to those who think differently and in
so doing bear the brunt of their anger and perse-
cutions. The Church therefore has a pragmatic
2
C. E. Cranfield, Romans 9-16 (ICC Commentary;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 653.
3
J. D. Kallas, Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation NTS 11
(1964-5), 365-374; W. O. Walker, Interpolations in the
Pauline Letters (SNTS Supplement 213; London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001); E. Barnikol, Romer 13 (Studien
zum Neuen Testament und der Patristik; Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 1956), 114-123; J. C. ONeill, Romans.
and Caesar is not. The Christian Gospel is of necessity
subversive of any political viewpoint that rivals the
claims of Christ, as Wright and his fellows perceive the
Roman Empire of the day to be doing.
The Importance of Romans
13:1-7 for the discussion of
Paul and Empire
For those on both sides of the discussion Romans
13:1-7, with its bold statement:
let everyone be subject to the governing
authorities. For no authority exists except from
God, and the authorities that exist have been
established by God.
remains a key text. For one thing, it is addressed to
Christians living in the heart of the Roman Empire,
Rome itself. Although the debate about the precise
purpose of Romans continues, there is agreement
that in some sense it represents Pauls apologia, and
a statement of his definitive views. If a political
dimension is contained anywhere in the thought of
Paul, therefore, it must surely be here, in a letter
addressed to Christians who are under the eye of the
Emperor, and therefore most likely to bear the brunt
of any oppressive treatment from him.
Romans 13:1-7 appears to be just the definitive
statement about the political authorities that we
might expect in such a letter. It appears to give a clear
endorsement of the pagan ruling authorities as
brought into existence by God and working as ser-
vants of God. Its apparently unqualified nature seems
to some to leave the door open for those who suggest
that the text endorses all kinds of behaviour by the
ruling authorities, both democrats and despots alike.
J. C. ONeill picks up this point in his much-quoted
assertion that:
These words have caused more unhappiness
and misery in the Christian East and West than
any other 7 verses in the New Testament by the
license they have given to tyrants.
1
Even a judicious commentator like Cranfield is
prompted to admit that it is difficult to see how Paul
1
J. C. ONeill, Pauls Letter to the Romans, (London:
Penguin, 1975), 209.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cassidy 385
that situational readings of the text are at least an
improvement on those readings that see it as a
Christian theology of the State, he suggests that such
readings fail in two ways. Firstly, they suggest that
an understanding of the historical circumstances ade-
quately explains the statements in the text; secondly,
they imply that the historical realism of which Paul
speaks is inevitable. Such historical relativising takes
attention away from what Elliott sees as the glaring
inconsistency of the positive manner in which Paul
speaks of earthly authorities here and the sharply
negative ways he speaks of them everywhere else
8
.
Having warned of the shortcomings of situational
readings of the text, Elliott actually proceeds to pres-
ent his own suggested Sitz im Leben for the text,
located in the need Paul felt to protect the predomi-
nantly Gentile Roman Church from the dangerous
fallout from rising Jewish nationalistic agitation. He
concludes that the words of Romans 13:1-7 are
Merely rhetorical commonplaces, meant only to
focus the audiences attention on the discernment
of the good and thereby keep members of the
t||iqoio from making trouble on the streets
9
Anthony Guerra is one of a number of scholars who
focus on the particular issue of taxation, in the light
of Pauls rationale for Christians continuing to pay
their taxes.
10
Guerra encourages us to recognise what
he calls the Roman Factor in what Paul writes, and
to draw out the implications of the fact that Paul was
writing specifically to Roman Christians. Romans
13:1-7 is therefore an exhortation related to the con-
crete historical situation in which the payment of
taxes was a constant irritation between all the people
living in Rome, not just the Christians and the civil
authorities. He is well aware of what had previously
resulted from local civil unrest, namely the expulsion
of Jews from the city. Under Nero many of these
were being allowed to return, but were returning to a
far from settled situation. In these circumstances
Paul reaffirms the central themes of political apolo-
getic, namely, that the State has coercive powers that
need to be recognised and, because of this, subjects,
8
For example, his denunciation of them in 1 Cor 2:8 as the
rulers of this world who crucified the Lord of Glory.
9
Elliott, Romans 13:1-7, 188.
10
Anthony J. Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition
(SNTS Monograph 81; Cambridge: CUP, 1995).
obedience to earthly rulers, an obedience that
nevertheless leaves it free to disobey and to bear
the consequences of such disobedience.
4
Many traditional interpretations of Romans
13:1-7 have ignored the careful distinction made by
Augustine and seen the text as giving an unqualified
endorsement of the ruling authorities. This has fitted
in well with that stream of Christian thought that
separates religion and politics totally, believing that
Christians simply get on with the things of God and
leave the things that belong to Caesar well alone. So
Barrett describes Pauls attitude as being that of the
petit bourgeois, an attitude he argues was on the
whole the attitude of the Primitive Church.
5
Barrett
does recognise that it is not as simple as that. Paul
acknowledges that a stable State is essential in order
to lay the ground for the presentation of the Gospel.
Dunn similarly describes Paul as adopting a
pragmatic approach.
6
According to Paul, Roman
Christians should not seek to subvert Roman rule but
accept it as a reality with which they have to deal and
under which they have to live. Dunn argues that the
parallels with 1 Peter 2:13-17 indicate that this atti-
tude, which he styles political prudence was wide-
spread among Christian congregations at that time.
Paul is affirming that Christians, rather than subvert-
ing the social order, are ready to accept it and become
part of the bigger picture.
Situational Approaches to
the Text
A number of scholars adopt a situational, or relativ-
ising, approach to the text, seeing it not as the laying
down of any universal theological principle, but as a
practical answer to a specific historical problem or
set of problems.
Neil Elliott warns against situational approaches
that attempt to restrict Pauls statement to the narrow
historical situation at Rome.
7
Although he concedes
4
St Augustine, City of God, XIX.17.
5
C. K. Barrett, The Letter to the Romans (Blacks
Commentary; London: A & C Black, 1957), 248.
6
J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Commentary, Dallas:
Nelson, 1988), 680.
7
N. Elliott, Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial
Propaganda, in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Empire
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1997), 184-204.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
386 The Expository Times 121(8)
N. T. Wright, who has written and spoken on the
topic of Pauls attitude to the State perhaps more than
any other scholar in recent years, also stresses the
vital importance of reading this passage in context.
16

His treatment of the text is summed up in three state-
ments. Firstly, Paul strongly affirms that private
vengeance is forbidden for the Christian. But to dem-
onstrate that God is not indifferent to right and
wrong, he puts in place properly authorised officials
to keep order and punish wrongdoers. Secondly, over
against normal Imperial rhetoric, Paul insists that
earthly rulers are not themselves divine, but are
answerable to God. Wright argues that what Paul
says represents in fact a significant demotion rather
than elevation of the Emperors. This would be sub-
versive to those rulers who claimed their own divin-
ity or at least claimed to have power in their own
right.
17
Thirdly, Paul is steering Christians away from
the notion that loyalty to Christ necessitates involve-
ment in civil disobedience, something that would
simply shuffle the cards into a different order. Wright
therefore concedes that the ruling authorities do have
a measure of divine authority in the maintenance of
law and order, but still wishes to fit the passage into
his overall view that Paul is here implicitly subvert-
ing those same authorities.
Coming at the text from a different angle, P. H.
Towner argues that the subversive edge to what Paul
is saying in this passage that has been largely lost in dis-
cussions about the passages structure and background,
with the many related questions.
18
To rediscover this
16
Amongst many pieces Wright has written on
the subject, we can perhaps pick out Paul: Fresh
Perspectives (London: SPCK, 2005), esp. 59-79 and
Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part Two, Chapters 9-16
(London: SPCK 2004), 82-87.
17
Wright, Paul for Everyone, 46. He is supported in this by
R. Jewett, Romans: A Critical and Historical Commentary
on the Bible (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
2007), 790. Jewett argues that Pauls argument that it is
the God embodied in the crucified Jesus turns this passage
into a massive act of political co-optation. If the Roman
authorities had read this passage they would have seen
it as thoroughly subversive. See also B. Witherington III,
A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Romans (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 307.
18
P. H. Towner, Romans 13:1-7 in Pauls Missiological
Perspective in S. Soderland and N. T. Wright (eds.),
Romans and the People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 149-169.
including Christians, must be encouraged to fulfill
their obligations to the State, including the obligation
to pay the divisive taxes. Thomas Coleman picks up
this same point about payment of taxes, pointing to
the fact that under Nero a difficult situation had
become significantly worse.
11
Tacitus tells us that so
severe was the unrest over taxation that Nero was
almost forced to capitulate over the issue.
12
Instead
of capitulating, however, he increased the burden of
taxation, and non-payment became a criminal
offence. In these circumstances Paul urges his read-
ers to conform, to pay the taxes, and thereby not draw
attention to themselves in a way that would provoke
a Roman backlash.
By the time of the infamous persecution by Nero in
64 CE, Christians had clearly become a distinct group,
at least in Rome. It is reasonable to suppose that the
process of separation between Christian and Jewish
communities had begun in the perception of the
Roman authorities some years earlier, and was con-
ceivably therefore an issue around the time Paul wrote
Romans. Ernst Bammel argues that this was indeed
the case, and suggests that this was in no small mea-
sure the result of anti-Christian propaganda on the part
of Roman Jews.
13
Bammel argues that Paul is here not
only making his political stance clear, as part of his
wider political apologia, he is at the same time defin-
ing the position of the Christian Community in Rome.
He goes on to describe Romans 13:1-7 as an alibi, a
proof of innocence, for the Church, and sees it as the
beginning of Christian apologetic.
14
He draws back, however, from the notion that
here Paul is setting out a full-blown theology of the
State, emphasising the importance of contextualising
the passage:
As an account of the Pauline view of the State
this passage must be given its place in the side
aisle rather than the nave.
15
11
T. Coleman, Binding Obligations in Romans 13:1-7:
A Semantic Field and Social Context in Tyndale Bulletin
48 (1997), 307-327.
12
Tacitus, Annals, 13.50.
13
E. Bammel, Romans 13, in E. Bammel and C. F. D.
Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge:
CUP, 1984), 365-383.
14
Bammel, 375.
15
Bammel, 381.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cassidy 387
Paul makes this statement in continuity with a long
Old Testament tradition of God putting rulers in their
places (and often subsequently taking them down).
Nebuchadnezzar is told that God changes times and
seasonssets up kings and removes them.
21
This
principle includes of course pagan rulers, the most
notable example of which in the Old Testament is
Cyrus the Persian (Isaiah 45:1-7). Cyrus is referred
to as the Lords Anointed, and has the divinely
appointed task of subduing nations, loosing the loins
of kings and opening doors that cannot be shut. In
speaking of the Roman Emperor as Gods servant
with a divine commission, Paul is setting out no new
idea. The point is hammered home by Pauls use of
the strong military term uooooo for submis-
sion, to describe the Christians proper attitude to
the civil authority, a term that admits of no mental
reservation or qualification, and of greater strength
than the usual uo|ouo.
22

Whilst it is perfectly proper, as Wright and Elliott
do, to focus on the practical outworkings of
uooooo, the full weight of the theological state-
ment concerning the divine institution of civil author-
ity in verse 1 has to be recognised and not glossed
over. Nor does it matter how precisely these authori-
ties are identified, whether for example the State
authorities or, less likely, the local civil magistrates.
It is the principle of the institution of all secular
authorities by God that is in view.
2. On the other hand, those who take the theological
import of verse 1 seriously need to recognise that
there is also an Old Testament tradition of honour-
able resistance to the prevailing civil authority which
needs to be noted. The Hebrew midwives quietly
ignore Pharoahs instruction to kill the Hebrew
babies. Rahab lies to the King of Jericho in order to
shield the Hebrew spies. Daniel, in spite of what he
had said to Nebuchadnezzar, defies the Kings
decrees. The Magi disobey Herods direct orders to
report back to him when they had news of the new
King. Peter and John sum the tradition up in their
bold assertion we must obey God, not men (Acts
5:29). It is for readers of the New Testament in their
own circumstances to find the resolution of these two
21
Daniel 2:21. See also 2 Sam 12:7; Jer 27:5; Dan 2:37;
4:17; 5:21; Wisdom 6:3,4; 1 Enoch 46:5.
22
For Pauls use of the term see Romans 8:20; 1 Cor 14:34;
15:27; Phil 3:21.
subversive element a somewhat different approach
needs to be taken. This involves setting the passage
within its cultural milieu, one in which theological,
literary and cultural currents, currents that corre-
spond to key Pauline emphases, intersect.
Towners main thrust is that Romans 13:1-7
does not represent a universal theology of the State,
but an exhortation that belongs to a broader stratum
of ethical teaching crafted to encourage Christians
to participate fully in the world. In particular, it is
part of a tradition designed to guide the Church in
the process of world transformation. This process of
transformation depends on a circumspect, enthusi-
astic missionary involvement in the structures of
society on the part of the Church. This involvement
is the ethical and missiological corollary of Gods
plan for universal salvation. Towner builds his argu-
ment on a radical vision of the Church as the
Household of God, and by a reworking of the con-
cept of benefaction as something applied to all
Christians. Pauls encouragement to submission,
therefore, is not an end in itself, but is meant to
further the work of the Gospel.
Reflections on the Discussion
The discussion concerning Romans 13:1-7 contin-
ues, just as the wider debate on Paul and Empire
continues.
19
Several points emerge out of what we
have charted of the discussion so far.
1. The so-called situational approaches to the text
do not remove the problem posed by verse 1, with
its bold assertion that all authority is from God.
The force of the language is that no authority exists,
except through the power of God. Far from taking
over something pre-existing and re-directing it in
some way, God has brought the very authority into
existence and then directed it. Although it is not a
full-blown theology of the State, leaving much still
to be said, it is a theological statement nevertheless.
It does not need to be inflated into theology, as
Elliott suggests it is already theology.
20
19
See the collections of essays edited by R. A. Horsley
in particular, Paul and Empire (Harrisburg: Trinity Press,
1997) and Paul and Politics (Harrisburg: Trinity Press,
2000). Also, most recently, S. Kim, Christ and Caesar: The
Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and
Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
20
Elliott, Romans 13:1-7, 188.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
388 The Expository Times 121(8)
less.
25
To suggest anything else would have been to
risk the very unrest Paul was seeking to avoid.
4. Contextualisation of Romans 13:1-7 is indeed
important, as many scholars recognise. But the literary
context is equally, if not more important than the his-
torical context. Having set aside the view of the pas-
sage as an interpolation, we can see it as part of the
longer paranesis, stretching from 12:1-13:14. In
response to what he has been saying about the Gospel,
Paul urges his readers to offer their bodies as a living
sacrifices, and, rather than being conformed to this
world, be renewed in their minds. The following
verses work this out in all its different dimensions. In
the immediate context, Paul urges Christians to live in
peace with everyone (12:18), referring initially to
those inside the Church, and then focussing on those
outside, which include the civil authorities.
26
The
injunction to submission and honour (13:7) follows on
quite naturally from this.
However, such submission is for Paul never an end
in itself. Supporting the civil authorities enables
them to carry out their divinely-ordained function
of maintaining order, so that an environment can be
created and maintained in which the Gospel can be
spread. The call to prayer for the Emperor in 1
Timothy 2:7 is set in the context of Gods desire that
all men should be saved. Towner is correct there-
fore in emphasising the missiological nature of the
passage in Romans. Far from reflecting petit bour-
geois attitudes, Paul is discouraging anything that
would bring the Church into disrepute in the eyes of
the authorities and thereby make the fulfilment of
the Gospel mission more difficult. This would
appear to be a much more positive and dynamic
way of looking at Pauls attitudes than the imperial-
critique view.
5. Where does this leave ONiells view, referred to
above, that Pauls words are an encouragement to des-
pots and tyrants? Clearly they are not, and Paul does
not intend them to be taken that way. The divine pur-
pose for the authorities is to reward goodness and
punish wrongdoing (vv. 3, 4). It is significant that
when Paul asks the rhetorical question would you
25
Witherington indeed acknowledges this, Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary, 307.
26
So J.Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible Commentary;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 664.
principles of submission and resistance. Infuriatingly
Paul offers us little help in this passage.
3. We should observe generally that the alleged threat
to Christians in Pauls day from the Roman Empire is
frequently exaggerated. At the point where Paul writes
Romans the Roman Empire is less than 100 years old
and, though the notion of a king-god was familiar
from the days of Alexander, it was still in the process
of development within the Roman religious tradition.
The building of the provincial temple at Pergamum,
something that may be considered a decisive moment
in the establishment of the cult, came as the result of
an enthusiastic request from the people of Asia to a
hesitant Augustus. Tiberius, notwithstanding the fact
that there were temples dedicated to him, did not seem
to be over-interested in religious affairs. Tacitus
records him as declaring that to be consecrated in the
image of deity throughout all the provinces would be
vanity and arrogance.
23
Caligula does indeed claim
divinity for himself, but that claim is not endorsed by
the people and does not prevent him being assassi-
nated after only four years reign. Neros preoccupa-
tion was with the arts. It is not until the later time of
Domitian that dominus atque deus becomes an
Imperial title, and then only in Domitians personal
usage.
24
In any case, divinity was something awarded
(when indeed it was awarded) by the Senate posthu-
mously. Because of this incomplete and inconsistent
pattern, evidence is lacking that Christians were at this
point in time faced with any particularly intense pres-
sure from the Imperial Cult.
This is all by way of saying that the notion of Wright,
Jewett, Witherington and others that Paul is here
being subversive of Emperors who believed or
claimed to believe in their own divinity, or at least
that they held power in their own right (Wrights
words) owes something to historical anachronism.
Emperors had simply not yet settled routinely into
that way of thinking. The case is further weakened
significantly by the fact that Paul is not writing to a
pagan Roman audience, but a Christian one. The
whole point of what Paul is saying is that Christians
ought to have greater respect for the authorities, not
23
Annals 4.37
24
Even this usage is now questioned. So L. Thompson,
The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford:
OUP, 1990), 104-107; S. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the
Apocalypse of John (Oxford: OUP 2001), 148.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Cassidy 389
may well in fact not have been the case, and at this
point Paul is expressing political naivety. To suggest
this is not to detract in any way from Pauls greatness
as an Apostle and letter writer.
Seekers of consistency in Pauls thought often
discover themselves to be frustrated. Paul is no sys-
tematic theologian. Even in his lifetime he was
accused of vacillating, and having frequent changes
of mind.
28
It may be that this is an example of Pauls
reluctance to systematize his thought. Jewett
describes this as another example of Pauls willing-
ness to be in the world, but not of the world, to reside
between the ages, and be all things to all men for the
sake of the Gospel. He goes on to say,
The paradox needs to be named, and ac-
knowledgement made that Romans 13:1-7 has
provided the basis for propaganda by which the
policies of Mars and Jupiter have frequently
been disguised as serving the cause of Christ,
thus evoking the ongoing controversy that the
exegetical literature has reflected.
29
It is for readers of Romans to resolve the paradox in
their own way in their own circumstances, not by
reading into Paul things that are simply not there, but
by the creative interplay of other principles from
within and without the Pauline Corpus. Such inter-
play will enable us to carry out Our Lords command
to love our neighbours in all spheres of life, not least
in the realm of politics.
28
cf. 2 Cor 1:17.
29
Jewett, Romans, 803.
have no fear of those in authority ? (v.3), he answers
with do what is right, not do what the authorities
say.
Paul simply does not envisage a situation in which
the Roman authorities will not do what is right, or
will use their power in an abusive way. This may in
part have been coloured by his own positive experi-
ence at the hands of the Romans. Although there
were hiccoughs at Philippi and other places, Paul
was on the whole treated well by those authorities,
and at the end of his journeying lives openly at Rome
awaiting trial (Acts 28:30, 31).
The early years of Neros reign, within which
Romans was written, are regarded by historians as
good times. Greenhalgh goes as far as asserting the
first five years were seen as a golden age, not least
because in those years Nero was content to follow the
advice of Burrus and Seneca, the regents.
27
The
excesses associated with his increasing self-assertion
were to come later. But at this point in time Paul, like
the Roman population as a whole, had every reason to
believe that the new rhetoric of peace contained in his
famous document De Clementia, a document express-
ing Neros desire to put away the sword, was genuine.
Paul considered himself to have good reason therefore
for optimism concerning the Roman State, whatever
evidence to the contrary there may have been.
Advocates of the imperial-critique understanding
of Paul would have him as a very astute and sophisti-
cated political commentator, with his many alleged
allusions to Roman political thought. However, this
27
P. A. L. Greenhalgh, The Year of the Four Emperors
(London: Widener & Nicolson, 1975), 4.
Coming Next Month
Stephen K. Pickard considers The Collaborative Character of Christian Ministry for the
future of the Church; also Kevin Ellis reflects on Working Class Dreams, Working Class
God in the context of Churches and Church organisations; and John Collins offers and
evaluation of Richard Bauckhams recent work in Re-thinking Eyewitnesses in the light
of Servants of the Word.
by Eduardo de la Serna on September 29, 2010 ext.sagepub.com Downloaded from