Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:17:32.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Romans 13.1–7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. I. H. McDonald
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the problematic nature of this passage. Its tragic misuse, in past and present, in the interests of supporting oppressive regimes and suppressing protest can neither be denied nor condoned. It is easy to lay the blame for such abusesat the door of non-contextual literalism, with its hidden agenda of endorsement of the status quo. Liberal interpreters, however, also work with a hidden agenda and cannot be allowed to assume that they know from the outset the ‘right’ interpretation of the passage.That is why we have described it as a test case for New Testament interpretation. It is not simply that the passage is being tested. Thetest is whether New Testament hermeneutics is able to handle acase as difficult and controversial as Rom 13. 1–7 while remaining true to its principles and without resorting to emergency procedures, such as drastic surgery!

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 540 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 540 note 1 For a discussion of the critical relevance of this passage to a modern context, cf. Boesak, A. A., ‘What Belongs to Caesar? Once Again Romans 13’ in Boesak, A. A. and Villa-Vicencio, C., A Call for an End to Unjust Rule (Edinburgh, 1986) 138–56.Google Scholar

page 540 note 2 This article was given as a short paper at the SNTS meeting at Göttingen 1987 and is reproduced here without substantial modification. The author wishes to thank all those who responded so generously to it.Google Scholar

page 541 note 1 Cf. Kallas, J., ‘Romans 13.1–7: An Interpolation’, NTS 11 (1965) 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 541 note 2 Ibid., 365; cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen [2], 1957) 280.Google Scholar

page 541 note 3 Cf. Kallas, art. cit., 367.Google Scholar

page 541 note 4 Ibid., 367 ff., 374.

page 541 note 5 O'Neill, J. C., Paul's Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975) 207;Google Scholarcf. Barnikol, E., ‘Römer 13: Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitbejahung von Römer 13.1–7’, Texte und Untersuchungen 77 (Berlin, 1961) 65–133.Google Scholar

page 541 note 6 O'Neill, , op. cit., 208 f.Google Scholar

page 541 note 7 Munro, W., Authority in Paul and Peter (SNTS Monograph 45, Cambridge, 1983) 3.Google Scholar

page 541 note 8 Cf. Bruce, F. F., ‘Paul and “The Powers That Be”’, BJRL 66,2 (1984) 78 ff.Google Scholar

page 542 note 1 Cf. Bruce, , art. cit., 80 ff. T. C. de Kruijf read a short paper at the SNTS meeting in Trondheim (1985), ‘The Literary Unity of Rom.12.16–13.8a: A Network of Inclusions’, in which an elaborate study of correspondences was made.Google Scholar

page 542 note 2 ‘That the paragraph is self-contained is obvious’: Bruce, art. cit., 80.Google Scholar

page 542 note 3 On the definition of a ‘rhetorical unit’, cf. Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC, 1984) 33 f.;Google ScholarWuellner, W., ‘Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.3 (1987) 455.Google Scholar

page 543 note 1 Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans (Eng. tr., London, 1980) 353.Google Scholar

page 543 note 2 Lehmann, P., The Transfiguration in Politics (London, 1975) 302Google Scholar, where the reference is to collaboration with J. L. Martyn:see also pp. 35–48. Cf. A. A. Boesak, art. cit., 146 ff.

page 543 note 3 For unqualified obedience, Paul would have been more likely to use ύπακούω or πειθαρχέω: cf. Mark 4. 41 par., Acts 5. 29. But it is hazardous to base a case on verbal usage alone: while 1 Pet 2. 18 uses ύποτάσσω of the servant-master relationship, Col 3. 22 and Eph 6.5 have ύπακούω.Google Scholar

page 544 note 1 McDonald, J. I. H., ‘Romans 13. 1–7 and Christian Social Ethics Today’, Modern Churchman 29, 2 (1987) 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 544 note 2 Wuellner, W., art. cit., 455.Google Scholar

page 544 note 3 Cf. Käsemann's description of ‘the charismatic community’, with reference to 12. 9–21: op. cit., 343–9.Google Scholar

page 544 note 4 Ibid., 332 ff.

page 545 note 1 Ibid., 351.

page 545 note 2 Borg, M., ‘A New Context for Romans XIII’, NTS 19 (1972) 205–18; cf. Suetonius, Life of Nero 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 545 note 3 For a discussion of μάχαιρα, the sword wielded by the state, cf. Friedrich, J., Pöhlmann, W. and Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Zum historischen Situation und Intention von Röm 13.1–7’, ZTK 73 (1976) 149 ffGoogle Scholar

page 546 note 1 Op. cit., 350 f.Google Scholar

page 546 note 2 Annals 15.44.Google Scholar

page 546 note 3 Cf. The War Rule from Qumran: on which see Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1962) 122–48.Google Scholar

page 546 note 4 Art. cit.Google Scholar

page 546 note 5 Tacitus, Annals 13.50.Google Scholar

page 547 note 1 Cf. Heiligenthal, R., ‘Strategien Konformer Ethik im Neuen Testament am Beispiel von Röm.13.l–7’, NTS 29,1 (1983) 59 f.; Käsemann, op. cit., 325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 547 note 2 Martin, J. P., ‘Toward a Post-Critical Paradigm’, NTS 33, 3 (1987) 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 548 note 1 The terms epoché (bracketing) and eidetic vision (Gk. τό εδος, hence ‘shape’, or ‘essence’) derive from Husserl and are well known in the phenomenological approach to the study of religion, which is closely related to hermeneutics.Google Scholar

page 548 note 2 W. Wuellner, art. cit, 461, where he follows Burke, K., A Rhetoric of Motives (Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1950) 49–59.Google Scholar

page 548 note 3 This is not intended as a blanket criticism of such interpretations but simply as an indication of a possible area of weakness which is receiving attention in more recent writings.Google Scholar

page 549 note 1 E.g., apart from 1 Pet 2.13–17, one might indicate Mark 12.13–17 par., 15.1–5, Luke 23. 6–12, John 18. 8–11,19.11; Acts 4. 5–12, 19 f., 29,5. 29; Rev 13 passim.Google Scholar

page 549 note 2 E.g., Boesak, A. A., Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation and the Calvinist Tradition (ed. Sweetman, L.) (New York, 1984) esp. 33–41.Google Scholar

page 549 note 3 Cf. Harries, R., Christianity and War in a Nuclear Age (London and Oxford, 1986) 54.Google Scholar