Citizenship in Rom 13.1-7

Citizenship in Rom 13:1-7 All must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except through God; authorities that exist do so by the allotment of God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has decreed, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For those who rule are not a terror to those who do good, but to those who do wrong. Do you wish to have no fear of the one in power over you? Do what is good, and you will receive praise from him, for he is the minister of God for your good. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid—he has that sword for a reason. For he is God’s servant, an avenger to carry out God’s wrath on the one who does what is wrong. Therefore, one must submit, not only because of God’s wrath, but because of conscience. For this reason, also, you pay various taxes, for bureaucrats exist for this very reason. Pay everyone what is owed: to whom property taxes are due, pay them; to whom income tax is due, pay it; to whom fear is due, fear him; to whom honor is due, honor him. (Author’s translation, following Nestle-Aland text.)1 Nicholas Stanton-Roark Literature and History of the New Testament II 5 May 2014 1 Kurt Aland, et al., ed. Greek New Testament With Revised Concise Greek-English Dictionary (Germany: Hendrickson Pub, 2011). Rom 13:1-7 stands at the center of a chiasm focused in the relationship of the church, as a community shaped and guided by ἀγάπη, toward outsiders. Some suspect that the text is a later interpolation while many more consider the text deeply problematic, as it seems to legitimate coercive political rule without practical restraint. These commentators point to German Lutherans who emphasized this passage during the 1930s and ‘40s. However, many elements within the text and socio-cultural setting of the letter and its audience may lead interpreters to see this pericope as an ironic statement about the injustice of Rome. Moreover, its textual location makes clear that “the state is charged with a function that has been explicitly forbidden to the Christian.”2 Literary Criticism σot only is Romans among the undisputed Pauline epistles, it is “indisputably Paul’s theological chef d’oeuvre.”3 It is the longest of Paul’s writings and, in contrast to the majority of Pauline and deutero-Pauline writings, written to a community Paul has not established, but to prepare the community for Paul’s eventual journey to Rome (1:11-13). The letter was entrusted to Phoebe, “a deacon of the church in Cenchrea” (1θμ1, β).4 Cenchrea was a Corinthian port, thus establishing the terminus post quem for Romans in 57/58 CE, when according to the traditional chronology Paul wintered in Corinth.5 ψen Witherington observes that “it is written to an audience that includes few if any of Paul’s own converts, and those mentioned in ch. 1θ are mostly coworkers rather than converts.”6 It is worth mentioning at this point that the sixteenth chapter, which has the strongest bearing on 2 3 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Tyndale, 1963), 238. Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1997), 559. 4 Except where noted, all translations my own. Brown, 560. Brown notes that revisionist chronologies would place Paul in Corinth earlier, but this doesn’t change the terminus post quem. 6 Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 1. 5 reconstructions of the audience, is textually questionable: some ancient manuscripts omit it entirely, others abbreviate it, while others place 16:25-27 in different locations.7 This paper follows the majority position that the names of chapter sixteen are original (or at least useful for understanding audience composition). A further caveat is needed, however. Since Paul had never traveled to Rome, it is difficult to say how accurately he knew or understood his own audience. Through sociological and demographical analysis, Peter Oakes has posited that the model Pompeian house church consisted of approximately forty people, made up of a craftworker-benefactor, his wife, children, a few (male) craftworking slaves, a (female) domestic slave, several other householders, some (but not all) of their spouses and households, a few members of families whose householder is not part of the house church, a couple of slaves whose owners are not part of the house church, a couple of free or freed dependents of people who are not part of the church house, and a couple of homeless people.8 This is a statistical mean, and perhaps no individual house church matched it precisely. Yet Oakes argues that it is likely that Paul, writing from Corinth, may well have pictured such an audience.9 “τn the other hand,” τakes adds, “Paul, like everybody in the Mediterranean world, will have had an image of Rome. He also knew people, such as Prisca and Aquila, who had lived in Rome before he met them.”10 Rome’s urban conditions demanded not house churches but tenement churches, that is, churches that met in urban apartment blocks rather than homes; possibly not all private residences.11 This is significant, as the head of the household where a house church met would exercise some authority.12 A church meeting in a store-front, however, 7 8 Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 5. Adapted from Table 3.6, Peter Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 87. 9 Ibid., 89. Ibid., 90. 11 Jewett, 54-5. 12 Ibid., 64. 10 may have been much smaller,13 and met without a patron. Jewett, noting in Rom 16 the prominence of slave names and of groups named without a leader, argues that the evidence of Romans 1θ “requires the hypothesis of nonpatriarchal groups that are creating a common life without the benefit of patronage.”14 If this is accurate, it would mark the audience of Romans as functioning in a more radical egalitarian society than is supposed by the world of Roman house codes. A final note is necessary regarding the audience of Romans, of particular importance to the interpretation and application of our pericope. That Paul knew so many individuals who lived in a city he had never visited is testament to the importance of the Edict of Claudius, expelling the Jews from Rome in 49 CE. Surely Paul met with these individuals during their exile, and they had subsequently returned to Rome. Thus, Paul was writing to an audience composed of churches that had been led at first by Jewish Christians, and then (by necessity) for several years by Gentile Christians. Form Criticism In some ways, Rom 13:1 demonstrates a clean break from what has come before it, particularly with its sudden shift from second to third person.15 Indeed, this has prompted scholars to suggest that this material is a later interpolation.16 This is certainly not the case, as 13:1-7 is deeply rooted both within the immediate context and within the letter as a whole (and is problematic for interpreters precisely to the degree that they fail to realize this). Dunn notes a parallelism between vv 1-7 and the development of Rom 2: Jerome Murphy-τ’Connor suggests 1ί-20 people in Jerome Murphy-τ’Connor, “Prisca and χquila,” BRev 8.6 (1992) 49-50. 14 Jewett, 65. 15 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, vol. 38b of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), 758. 16 Ibid. 13 Good work/the good Honor/praise The evil Wrath Condemnation Conscience 2:7, 10; 13:3-4 2:7, 10; 13:3 2:9; 13:3-4 2:5; 8; 13:4 2:3; 13:2 2:15; 13:517 Moreover, 1γμ1 continues “the gnomic style of the preceding chapter.”18 There are also elements of diatribe present in the pericope, as 13:3b-5 addressed to one hypothetical interlocutor and vv. 6-7 addressing the congregation directly (switching back to the second person plural of ch. 12), with a rhetorical question embedded in v. 3.19 These are all hallmarks of Paul’s formal style throughout Romans, thus deeply embedding this pericope within the narrative rhetoric of Romans as a whole. Within its local context, this passage bears a strong formal relationship with Rom 12:1β1. The concluding sentence of 1βμβ1, “Do not by evil be overcome, but in goodness overcome evil,” leads directly into this treatment of cooperating with and paying taxes to governing authorities “renowned in the ancient world for their avarice and injustice, in short, for their evil.”20 This connection is exhibited by thematic parallelism between 12:9-21 and 13:1-7.21 Most important structurally, however, is the broad chiasm of which 13:1-7 forms a (somewhat counterintuitive) center. A 12:9-21 Genuinely love one another; do not retaliate against evil-doers B 13:1-7 Do not resist authority, which retaliates against evil-doers; pay owed taxes χ’ 1γμκ-10 Love is the fulfillment of law; do not owe any debt except love 17 Dunn, 758. Jewett, 781. 19 Jewett, 781. 20 Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 331. 21 Ibid. 18 Thus, when read in context rather than isolation, the force of 13:1-ι is “how one relates to civic and political authorities within the overarching perspective of ἀ άπ .”22 When read as an extension, rather than an interruption, of ch. 12, the passage thus clearly communicates that Christians are to leave vengeance and wrath to God, and as God uses the sword of the nation-state (military, police and possibly the death penalty) to exact vengeance and wrath and to punish evil-doers, Christians must refrain from participating in the violence of the nation-state. Of course, this was not a live option for Christians in Rome, and Paul’s broader point in 13:1-7 is merely not to actively resist the authorities. Textual Criticism “Text critics have discovered fifteen different forms of Romans, including one no longer extant that is described by the church fathers.”23 Most of these differences relate to the final chapter, though significant textual differences exist throughout the text, including 13:1-7. Several western witnesses ( 46 D* G itd* g 51 Irlat Ambst Speculum1/2) modify Πᾶ α υ ὴ to read Πᾶ α ἐ υ α , an understandable change as it both avoids the Hebraism of “Let all souls” and intensifies the statement to regard instead, “χll authority.”24 The inclusion of υ ὴ is almost universally attested, however.25 Some MSS (including D* F G 69c) substitute ἀπ for πὸ in v. 1.26 Interestingly, many MSS ( D2 L P Ψ) add ἐ υ α again in 1c, thus altering “Those (authorities) that exist have been appointed” to “Those which are authorities have been appointed.”27 This perhaps reflects an attempt to de-problematize a statement seen as ἀ α ε 22 problematic in times of persecution. The reading without ἐ υ α has strong Esler, 332. Jewett, 5. 24 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 467. 25 Jewett, 780. 26 Ibid. Jewett calls this a “conceptual improvement.” 27 Ibid. 23 support, however, including ‫ א‬Α B D* F G.28 Origen, in Cels. 8.65.10 smoothes the participle in ἀ ε v. 2 to ε .29 Finally, 46 D F G it Irlat Ambst alter the passive “it is necessary to be subject” in v. η to the imperative π ά The term ἐ υ α πε ε ε ε (“be subject!”).30 α has led to speculation concerning possible interpretations other than the straightforward reading of governmental or political authorities. Dunn represents the mainstream view that Paul is here advocating against involvement in rebellions unpopular and unjust tax policies, which ultimately resulted in σero’s tax reforms. 31 Dunn writes specifically against the view held by, e.g., Walter Wink that the authorities in question are angelic forces.32 Another possibility is that the governing authorities in mind are Roman synagogues.33 Given the social conditions of the churches in Rome, addressed above, this seems unlikely, however. Dunn notes that the term ὁ ἀ α ε (from ἀ α ai) has consistent LXX connotations not simply of resistance, but of futile resistance, resistance “unavailing before superior strength.”34 The phrase ὰ ε ὴ ά α α φ εῖ may refer either to the symbol of office a magistrate wore, representing his authority, or more likely to the state’s right to the death penalty, as Roman citiὐens had the right to be executed by beheading rather than more ignominious means.35 In either case, the ά α α refers to the common sword of the era, and extant documents of the era refer to police officers as α α , “sword- bearers.” 28 29 it.” 30 Ibid. Ibid. Jewett says that “If there were other support for τrigen’s reading, one would be inclined to follow Ibid., 781. Jewett regards this western reading as deserving a measure of respect. Dunn, 760. 32 Ibid. 33 Esler, 331. 34 Dunn, 762. 35 Ibid. 31 Redaction Criticism Some (including Bultmann) have suggested that 13:5 is a gloss, with the apparent intention of easing together a section focusing on “wrath” and one focusing on “conscience.” This would match the pattern and motivation behind ancient glosses, but lacks any documentary support. Moreover, the style and vocabulary are to all appearances native Pauline.36 Additionally, some argue that the passage is a pre-composed Pauline unit, brought into this section more or less at random.37 That it was pre-composed seems plausible, but the passage’s strong ties to broader themes and specific phrases within the letter, noted above, would indicate that Paul at least reworked the material to fit in its location. More radically, some scholars argue that 13:1-7 is a non-Pauline interpolation. Jewett cites four reasons cited by proponents of this view: (1) the abrupt transition between 12:21 and 13:1 compared to the comparatively smoother transition between 12:21 and 13:8; (2) the disparity between the content of 13:1-ι and Paul’s apocalyptic worldview (e.g., the “rulers of this age” who did not understand ύod’s wisdom and so crucified the Lord of ύlory in 1 Cor 2:8); (3) allegedly non-Pauline language (but this case is quite weak); and (4) the likely motivation behind this as an interpolation, particularly to distance Christians from Jewish zealotism.38 However, no motivation can be discerned for the passage’s interpolation at this point in Paul’s letter in particular, while motivation for Paul’s inclusion of the passage as a subcategory of Christian ἀγάπη is clear enough. Moreover, the motivation of those who read this passage as an interpolation is equally clear, as the contemporary application of the passage is widely considered morally problematic. As a hermeneutical strategy, unless there is overwhelming evidence for non-originality of a pericope, problematic texts should be dealt with as though it is 36 Jewett, 782. Ibid. 38 Ibid., 784. 37 genuine. As such, this paper concludes that these are the words of Paul. What he may have meant by them will become clearer as we continue to unpack the text. Source Criticism “σo single tradition or source contains all of the material in 1γμ1-ι” and “it appears that Paul has incorporated terminology and ideas from a variety of directions.”39 The opening expression of Πᾶ α υ ὴ hearkens to both the LXX and Qumranic writings, particularly legal prohibitions, e.g. Lev 7:17. The general concept of political authority existing under God was well-known within the wisdom tradition. Wisd Sol 6:1-3, for instance, addresses leaders directly, saying, “Learn, O judges of the ends of the earth… your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High.”40 The Wisdom of Solomon passage goes on to strong condemnation of the rulers who failed to realiὐe thisμ “He will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on those in high places” (Wisd Sol θμη NRSV). Comparative dating makes direct adaptation of the passage possible, but likely Paul and the Wisdom author were simply drawing on the same tradition of Jewish wisdom. The parallel certainly does help to correct the reading of Rom 13:1 as fawning or purely quiescent. Several parallels exist between statements Paul makes regarding the state and the semiofficial language used by the state in regard to itself. Verse 3 states that those who rule “are not a [cause of] fear to good work.” Appian records Mark Antony appealing to the Senate with the words, “he immediately ordered ύaius to bring his army across the Ionian Sea to ψrindisium to bring fear in the Senate (ἐ φ υ ).”41 Additionally, Philo reports an apparent consensus regarding the role of governmentμ “to mete out censure and chastisement according to 39 Jewett, 786. NRSV 41 Appian, Bell. Civ. 3:4:27, 20-22, cited in Jewett, 792. 40 the law for wrong-doers; praise and honor for all well-doers.”42 Moreover, Paul’s reference to receiving praise (ἔπα ) from official is in line with official public policy to show recognition for public benefactors in the form of public inscriptions.43 Each of these instances of Rome’s own language for itself serves as a source for Paul’s specific formulations in this passage. Social Historical Criticism Knowledge of the socio-historical situation of both Paul and his readers at the time of this writing is precisely what leads some interpreters to regard this text as non-authentic. Paul relates the sufferings he has undergone in spreading the gospel, and many of those directly convey unjust treatment at the hands of government officialsμ he has seen “far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often [been] near death” (β Cor 11μβγ σRSV). This is not unexpected, as Paul preaches Christ crucified, which is precisely what the “rulers of this age” could not understood, “for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor βμκ σRSV). Paul both understands and expects opposition from the rulers. David Horrell notes the significance of these facts of Paul’s biographyμ “The crucial point about β Corinthians is that it is undoubtedly written prior to Romans and by Paul himself. Those who comment, as many do, that [Rom 1γ] was written before σero’s persecution ignore this rather obvious fact: Paul had already experienced the governing authorities’ enactment of ‘justice’ and might well have questioned the presumption that it rewards good and punished evil.”44 Likewise, his audience is composed in part of Jewish Christians who had been forced to leave Rome due to the Edict of Claudius in 49 CE. Jewish settlers had begun moving to Rome in large numbers as early as the second century BCE, and by the beginning of the first century CE as 42 Philo, Mos. 1:154, cited in Jewett, 792. ψruce W. Winter, “The Public Honouring of Christian ψenefactorsμ Romans 1γ.γ-4 and 1 Peter 2.14-15” JSNT 43 (1988), 91-92. 44 David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2005), 255. 43 many as 50,000 Jews may have lived in the city.45 Suetonius states that Claudius “expelled Jews from Rome because of their constant disturbances impelled by Chrestus,”46 a likely reference either to Jewish Christians disturbing the social order of the city, or to conflicts between church and synagogue causing disturbances. In any event, the edict had a heavy effect on the churches present in Rome, as many of their members and much of their leadership would have been expelled from the city. The edict thus served for the community as reminder of the capriciousness and partiality of Roman justice. There is a likelihood approaching on certainty, therefore, that Paul would have intended and his audience would have heard irony in these words. This likelihood is strengthened by the tenor of Paul’s statements about rulers throughout his writings elsewhere.47 Praxis Augusto Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a CIA-backed coup on 11 September 1973. The Pinochet Regime (1973-90) functioned largely on terror of its citizens, as critics of the regime, or their relatives, were routinely “disappeared,” taken in the night or from the street for mental and physical torture. Some of the disappeared were never seen again; some were released, psychologically shattered and socially dangerous. The bishops of the Catholic Church under Pinochet, against the advice of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, followed the Social Catholicism political theology of Jacques Maritain. Maritain insisted, following a quietist reading of Romans 13, that the church was to be social but not political: to tell parishioners to care for the poor, but not to advocate means for doing so. As such, the church officially had nothing to say to the government torture. William T. Cavanaugh records the transformation 45 Brown, 561. Suetonius, Claudius 25.4 47 This is helpfully summarized in Gordon Mark Zerbe, Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics (Winnipeg, Manitoba: CMU Press, 2012), 127-9. 46 across the years of the priests’ attitudes to administering the mass, beginning with the nonpolitical approach advocated by the bishops, but moving to an increasingly political application.48 Where at first they only preached in the most general terms about love of neighbor, they began to make specific condemnations, including condemnation of those who worked for Pinochet’s secret police, who were complicit in these state-sponsored abductions. When the mass was administered, the priest clarified that the families of the disappeared were welcome, because Christ was himself a torture victim, but the torturers were not. In short, the church, while still submitting to the governing authorities, nevertheless became political and witnessed by its own liturgy to the injustice of the state apparatus. In this opposition between the bishops, invoking Maritain, and the priests, invoking the image of Jesus executed by the governing authorities, we can see two competing accounts of Rom 13:1-7 in action. 48 William T. Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998). Bibliography Aland, Kurt, et al., ed. Greek New Testament With Revised Concise Greek-English Dictionary. Germany: Hendrickson Pub, 2011. Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1997. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Tyndale, 1963. Cavanaugh, William T. Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16. Volume 38b of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard, lenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988. Horrell, David G. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2005. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Murphy-τ’Connor, Jerome. “Prisca and χquila,” Bible Review 8.6 (1992) 49-50. Oakes, Peter. Reading Romans in Pompeii. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009. Winter, Bruce W. “The Public Honouring of Christian ψenefactorsμ Romans 1γ.γ-4 and 1 Peter 2.14-15” Journal for Study of the New Testament. 43 (1988), 91-92. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Zerbe, Gordon Mark. Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics. Winnipeg, Manitoba: CMU Press, 2012.