14. - Romans 13:3-4
"Rulers hold no terrors to those who do right. . . If you wish not to fear the authorities, then do what is good and you will have their approval, for they are God's agents working for your good." [NIV/NEB]
Can Paul possibly have any sense of Jesus' historical trial and crucifixion and still express such sentiments? ....In fact, all the early writers lack the essential atmosphere of the Gospel presentation of Jesus' death: that this was the unjust execution of an innocent man, beset by betrayal and false accusations and a pitiless establishment. Instead, Paul in Romans 8:32 extols the magnanimity of God who "did not spare his own Son but surrendered him for us all," and for the writer of Ephesians (5:2), it is Christ himself who in love "gave himself up on your behalf as an offering and a sacrifice whose fragrance is pleasing to God."
1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
The authorities involved in Jesus' crucifixion treated him unjustly.
2. Relevancy within context:
To the extent that Paul is discussing Roman authorities (since he is writing to Romans) the passage is relevant. However, Paul isn't writing about the events surrounding Jesus' death. Paul refers to "rulers" in a way that sounds universal. However, Paul doesn't say he is talking about all rulers who ever existed. All he says is "those that exist". Does that mean all that exist or just some that exist?
Paul is writing to the Romans at a particular point in time, and as far as we know it was prior to Roman persecutions. Paul says nothing of government persecutions of Christians in the entire letter of Romans. Had they been happening surly Paul wouldn't have written that governments "are not a terror to good conduct". There is no need to read these verses as binding and universal. As such, an expectation for Paul to deride the Roman's current government is questionable.
Paul wasn't an idiot. With his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, he knew of evil an unjust rulers from his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. If my interpretation above is correct, he says in 1 Cor 2:8 that rulers crucified Jesus, using the same word as in this passage. And, Paul refers 11 times in his epistles to the crucifixion without indicating that it happened somewhere other than earth. The more natural interpretation is that this happened on earth and by the decree of someone in authority. Doherty's appeal to contradiction defies common sense with regard to Paul's general conception of rulers, his specific reference to rulers that crucified Christ, and the natural understanding of his repeated reference to Jesus' crucifixion. It makes the most sense then to conclude that Paul is telling the Romans what was generally true as far as the law applied to them at the time Paul wrote the letter.
With this in mind, let's look at what Paul says:
1. Authority comes from God. This is not contradicted by the gospel record. In Gjohn 19:44, Jesus says the same thing, contrasting the authority God has given Pilate by virtue of his position with the authority Judas took upon himself.
2. The nature of authority--to uphold good conduct. I argue above that Paul's knowledge of contradictions to this call argues that Paul wasn't making a statement that he believed is always applicable to every ruler who has ever and will ever exist.
3. The way Christians are to respond to authority. Paul tells them to obey. In a few verses later Paul tells them to pay their taxes, which is something the gospels say Jesus taught. In the verses preceding the passage, Paul stresses living in harmony. In the verses just after, Paul reminds them to "love your neighbor as yourself", another thing Jesus taught. Paul refers to Jesus as being obedient to the death of the cross. There is no contradiction here.
3. Related information in other early writings:
Paul only mentions those who crucified Jesus in two places-- 1 Cor 2:8 and 1 Thess 2:15. Paul mentions the suffering of Jesus in many places. Paul mentions the crucifixion in 11 places. The author of Hebrews mentions that Jesus "endured from sinners such hostility against himself"(12:3). The author of 1 Peter says "23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;" In addition, as mentioned in the last "silence" Paul may have indicated that Jesus was betrayed in 1 Cor 11. Combined these strongly imply that early writers did know that rulers treated Jesus badly, including Paul.
4. Conclusion
To conclude that Paul knew nothing of rulers treating Jesus badly and--by implication--unjustly, makes a number of assumptions that seem unlikely from both a common sense standpoint with regard to Paul, and several passages about Jesus' crucifixion. To conclude that the rulers who crucified Jesus could not have been the Roman rulers because Paul was saying to obey govt authorities seems unduly restrictive.
|
