“Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all
authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed
there by God”. Rom.13,1-2. NLT
Jimi
Zacka, PhD
Introduction
It is important to tackle the question about the meaning
of this verse: "…all authority comes from God, and those in positions of
authority have been placed there by God " ? Because for decades, contrary to what one may
think, I have noticed that the strongest instinct of man in general, and specifically
African leaders, is the thirst for power:
to be in authority, to be obeyed by the finger and the eye.
This is the worst temptation for which some greedy power-seekers are
ready to sell their souls to the devil to afford power in the political or the religious
fields.
This is explained
by the bloated number of political parties that, at times, are only the shadow
of a family, a clan, a tribe, and also the
emergence of the strong men leaders in the field of politic or religion who are
keen on maintaining a stronghold on power .
So, the power that everyone is desperately seeking for,
to the point of making it an obsession of which the people are often victims,
is to really serve a country, a church or for one’s own benefits?
Does
all authority come from God? What are we to understand by this? Some leaders often rely on this part of the text Rom
13: 7:"For all authority comes from God" to affirm that it
is God who granted them with power and people have to owe them blind obedience.
What does it really mean? Can we say for real that the Word of God praises
political or religious power without any other form of trial? By saying that
"there is authority only by God and those that exist are established by
him" (Rom 13:1), does the apostle defend the idea that all powers come
from God? Does he call Christians to obey any authority? Does Jesus see things
as Paul says? What was his attitude towards the civil and religious authorities
of his time? These questions lead me to three axes: First, it is
essential to see the historical context in which the Apostle Paul wrote this
text. Second, what authority Paul wants to speak about it. Third,
the Bible teaches us that all authority comes from God. So, do all even the
most despotic authorities come from God?
1.
Historical
Context: Romans 13
At first, the text that serves as a support for my
reflection (Rm13,1b) certainly corresponds to a given historical
situation. By the time Paul addresses the Christians of Rome – we are around
the year 56 CE – Roman authority is far from totalitarian. However,
using these two verses as a packet theology of church and state is problematic,
even within the Pauline corpus alone. The same man who wrote Romans 13 also
frequently took up themes in his writings that would challenge the power and
authority of the Roman Empire, for the declaration that Jesus is Lord contains
the implicit declaration that Caesar is not. Our understanding of these seven
verses must, therefore, be able to mesh with other passages (such as Phil
2:6-11; 3:20-21; 1 Thess 1:9-10; and 4:13-5:11) and their implications on
relations between church and state. Many
commentators in recent years have recognized the importance of interpreting
this passage in light of its historical context at the time of its composition
(c. A.D. 57, instead of assuming that these verses are Paul’s fundamental views
on how church and state should relate to each other.
Knowledge
of the situation facing the Roman Christians in A.D. 57 is crucial to the interpretation
of this text. Emperor Claudius had expulsed Jews from the city of Rome in A.D.
49, removing Jewish believers from the Roman church and therefore leaving only
Gentile Christians behind in their stead. On the contrary, the imperial administration had very
good relations with the populations after the Christians had experienced more
unpleasant moments. These populations are neither bullied nor oppressed.
Justice is done to anyone who feels aggrieved. Themis – goddess of fairness and
law in Greek mythology – does not necessarily decide in favor of the rich or
the powerful. This is the power that Paul knew and – certainly – appreciated.
For if this power had seemed to him partial, if it inspired him only fear and
mistrust, he would not have resorted to him when accusations were made against
him by the jewish high priests and notables of Caesarea (Acts 25:1-12).
It is this kind of power that Paul thinks of as he enjoins the Christians of
Rome to submit to the authorities: a power at the service of good and social
justice.
However,
Claudius was killed by his wife Agrippina in A.D. 54, and her son Nero advanced
to the throne that same year, immediately allowing the Jews to return to the
city. When Romans was written by Paul in A.D. 57, the Empire enjoyed a period
of peace that looked quite different from the chaos that would characterize the
later years of Nero’s reign.
Guided by
his advisor Seneca, Nero made promises of a different and better peace
than the pax romana of Augustus. He promised true peace,
characterized by restraint and the peaceful resistance to using force in order
to govern. While these promises were dashed beginning in A.D. 59, with Nero’s
matricide, the loss of his advisors, and the beginning of his persecution of
Christians, it is crucial to remember that Paul wrote Romans during the period
of hopeful peace from A.D. 54-59.
Romans
13:1-7 should not, therefore, be interpreted as if it were written to Roman
believers in the later years of Nero’s reign, when persecution and oppression were
rampant, for this would unduly strengthen Paul’s “pro-Empire” sentiments here.
With this
background information, it is easy to see why Paul here gives advice to his
readers, a cosmopolitan church in Rome struggling to figure out Jew-Gentile
dynamics in the early years of Nero’s reign, so as to prevent them from drawing
negative attention to themselves and damaging the effectiveness of the gospel
mission.
Although
things were presumably “going well,” as mentioned above, Paul knew full well
that things could get tense for the Roman believers very quickly. Despite the
period of relative peace from A.D. 54-59, tensions were rising in Rome in A.D.
57-58 regarding the particularly nasty practice of indirect taxation.
Furthermore, the Jewish believers who had returned to the city in A.D. 54 might
not have been on the best terms with neither the Roman authorities nor the
Gentile believers. Much of what Paul has to say in this epistle speaks to this
issue: the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians within the Roman
context.
2.
Submitted to
the higher powers: vv.1-2
Why does the apostle say: ““Everyone must submit to governing authorities”, instead of
“every believer must submit to governing
authorities”? Weiss thinks that by this expression Paul
wants to indicate that he passes from the duties of collective life (ch. 12) to
individual obligations. Would he allude to the fact that submission must start
from the innermost heart of the human being (consciousness, v. 5)? The word "all" does not fit this explanation
well; rather, it leads to the belief that the apostle wants to indicate that it
is a duty that naturally falls to every human being. This is not an obligation
resulting for the faithful from his spiritual life, as the precepts of chapter
12; it is an obligation of psychic life, which is the common domain of
humanity. Every free and reasonable being must recognize its convenience.
The present imperative huppotassesthô, to submit,
indicates a thoughtful action, exercised by man on himself, and this in a
permanent way. This expression is indeed the counterpart of the term sôphronein, to dominate, in ch. 12. — The term of powers, superior does not
designate only the highest order among the authorities of the State. These are
all powers, to all degrees. The epithet hupperêchusai
only further accentuates the idea of superiority contained in the term exousai, power.
The second part of this verse justifies this duty of
submission, and this by two reasons: the first is the divine origin of the state,
as an institution; the second, the will of God who presides over the elevation
of the individuals in charge at each given moment. The first proposal has the
character of a general principle. This is what emerges from the singular to exousai, power; comp. the same word in
the plural before and after, in this same verse; which proves that Paul speaks
here of power in itself, and not of
its historical and particular achievements; of the negative form of the
proposition: "does not exist except
it . . . It is the statement of an abstract principle; 3° the choice of the
preposition .pì, from or from, which indicates the origin and essence of the
fact.
In fact, Paul means, first of all, that the institution
of the State is in conformity with the plan of God who created man for the
purpose of social life; so that it is necessary to recognize in the existence
of a constituted authority the realization of a divine thought. In the second
proposal he goes further (dè, and
more); he declares that in every time, the very persons who are established in
charge, occupy this high position only by virtue of a divine dispensation.
But, because of this very precept, one asks:
If it is not only the state itself that is a thought of God, but if the very
individuals who possess power at a given moment are established by his will,
what to do in times of revolution, when a new power violently replaces another?
This question, which the apostle does not raise, can, according to the
principles he poses, be resolved in this way: The Christian will submit to the
new power as soon as the resistance of the old power has ceased. In the fact
once established he will recognize the manifestation of God's will and will not
take part in any reactionary plot.
But should the Christian support power and
obey it even in its iniquitous measures? No, there is nothing to say that the
duty of submission contains active cooperation; it can also be realized in the
form of passive non-obedience, provided that this is joined by the calm
acceptance of the punishment inflicted; This submissive conduct, yet firm and
accompanied by the protest of deed and word, is also a tribute to the
inviolability of power; and experience proves that it is on this path that all
tyrannies have been morally broken and all true progress in the history of
mankind has been made.
13.2 so that he who is
rebellious to power opposes the institution of God; yet those who oppose it will
draw judgment to themselves.
This verse brings out guilt and, as a
consequence, the inevitable punishment of revolt. The term is the counterpart
of antitassomenos, v. 1. The perfect anthestenken, as well as the participle that
follows, have the meaning of presents. — The term diatagen, ordinance, contains the two ideas set forth v. 1b: a
divine institution and a state of affairs willed by God. This term recalls
etymologically and logically the three previous ones: huppotasesilô, antitassomenos
; and tetagmènai.—The application of
the principle laid down here always remains the same, whatever the form of
government, monarchical or republican. Every revolt has the effect of shaking
for a more or less long time the feeling of respect due to a divine
institution; and that is why God's chastisement cannot fail to reach the one
who is guilty of it. — Probably the term krima without article, a judgment, does not relate to eternal perdition; nor
should it be applied with several interpreters only to the punishment that will
be inflicted by the attacked authority. It is certainly, in the mind of the
apostle, God who will put his hand in it to avenge his compromised institution,
either directly or through human authority.
Paul reproduces here in a certain sense, but in another form, the word
of Jesus, Matthew
26:52 : " Those
who take up the sword, will perish by the sword.
Therefore, we must be extremely vigilant when we take
biblical words out of context to make them a kind of leitmotif, which is what was done with Paul's statement: " …all authority comes from God ." We could even ask ourselves the question, do we
have the right to take a few words out of a long development of Paul that
begins with these words " Do not conform to the present century but be
transformed by the renewal of your intelligence ". (Romans 12,2.)
A general slogan that invites us not to conform to
fashions, to the ambient doxa , to
confuse ourselves with the world at the risk of no longer being able to bring
anything to the world. We are sent into the world by Christ and at the same time
in Christ we are no longer subservient to the world.
This is the paradoxical condition of the Christian, a
condition recalled by Christ in the fourth Gospel. Romans 13 is therefore in
contradiction with this teaching of the
Christ but also in internal contradiction with Paul's
theology. For if we take into account all the Pauline epistles, and this was
immediately spotted by several commentators such as Alphonse Maillot, we can
ask ourselves this other question: How is it possible that Paul who
throughout his writings explains to us that obedience to the Torah, to the Law,
is no longer a way of salvation but that only faith in Jesus Christ has become
the way of salvation, Paul who affirms
that Christ's work is to free man from
all yokes... How is it possible that this same Paul can become ultra-legalistic
when it comes to talking about political institutions? There may be several
ways to answer this question...
1 ° The
first way to answer
would be to recall that Paul is addressing his contemporaries, Christians
living in Rome and that when he speaks of the "authorities" he speaks
of a very specific political reality, namely that of imperial power and not of
the nature of all political reality. We know that the Hellenistic Christians,
of which Paul is one of the spokesmen, are not far from thinking that God
installed the Roman Empire to serve as a framework for the birth and Genesis of
the Church and therefore for the conversion of the pagans.
2 ° The second way to
answer is to recall that Paul received a rabbinical teaching or in Judaism of
the first century the rabbis thought that the pagans had received an elementary
law, the 7 Noachic commandments, commandments that Noah had subsequently
given to his sons (Genesis 9:1-6): submission to judges, the prohibition of blasphemy, the prohibition
of idol worship, the prohibition of incest, the prohibition of murder, the
prohibition of theft, the prohibition of eating flesh with blood. An elementary
law that concerns all humanity with the project of keeping the world out of
chaos. Paul thus fits into this rabbinical understanding and seems to situate
the Roman Empire within the framework of the Noachic covenant established
between God and all peoples.
Moreover, through the coming of Christ, the Gospel
teaches us god's way of acting, which is different from what we imagine of
power. In this world, God does not compete with earthly forms of power. It has
no divisions to oppose to other divisions. To the rowdy and pompous power, He
opposes the defenseless power of love which, on the Cross -- and then
continually throughout history -- succumbs and yet constitutes the new reality
of divine power that opposes injustice and establishes the Kingdom of God. This
means that God's power is different from human power. And if man draws his
power from God, he must become different, he must learn God's style. It must
serve instead of being served. He must seek divine wisdom to exercise his power
like Solomon.
3.
Divine Power or Human Power ?
However, one of the mentalities that has perverted is the
idea of considering power as a means of providing money, a milking cow: a cow
that leaves its dung to the population and whose milk goes elsewhere, leaving
its calves (the people) hungry. The logic advocated in such cases is " the
cabri grazes the grass where it is attached " without knowing that
the "attached cabri who grazes the grass" is waiting to be eminently
slaughtered. Suffice to say that the conception of power is to be revisited in
our country on two levels.
At first, the God in whom Paul put his faith is a God of
peace, justice and order. That is why those who exercise power in his name,
those to whom he has delegated his authority, must ensure that the city is at
peace, that the citizens, those who live in the city, lead a calm and peaceful
life, that some are not robbed or exploited by others.
When the apostle speaks of authority, he therefore has in
mind an authority dedicated to justice, an authority that does not oppress arbitrarily.
It follows that the Apostle Paul does not ask us to submit to a dictatorial and
oppressive power or to a lax power. I call "lax power" a power that
would let offenders and troublemakers act as they please, a power that would
shine with impunity. But it's not just Paul who talks about power and
authority. Jesus also says how those in power behave and how His disciples
should exercise power. Mat 20:25 stigmatizes the abuse of power: "The
leaders of the nations hold them under their power and the great under their
domination." Then we have verse 26 which says, "This is not to be the case among
you. On the contrary, if anyone wants to be great among you, let him be your
servant."
We thus see that, for Jesus, to exercise authority is
neither to dominate others nor to terrorize them, but to put oneself at their
service. It goes without saying that the Christian will easily submit to such
authority. On the other hand, it will be difficult for him to obey those who do
anything of authority: for example, starving the people, preventing citizens
from practicing their faith, taking themselves for "infallible and
all-powerful gods" (Paul Valadier, Du spirituel en politique, Paris,
Bayard, coll. "Christus", 2008, p. 50) calling to crawl or prostrate
before them, to shed his blood with
enthusiasm for them." Jesus himself, when he addresses Pilate, reminds him
of the source of the power of which he misused: "Thou shalt have no power over me; if it
hadn't been for yougiven from haut" (Jn 19:11).
That said, secondly, the expression "All
authority comes from God" should not be applied to our modern
dictatorships or to any oppressive power in the Church or in civil society. In
any case, when Paul wrote to the Romans, he certainly did not think about the political systems
of our era. Ultimately, the phrase "All
authority comes from God", linked to specific historical
circumstances, cannot be used as a rule of reference for any type of authority.
Poorly organized elections, without
consensus or participation of all, the
seizure of power by arms, the rigging
of constitutions, etc. cannot be considered as "power coming from
God".
Human power is often characterized by selfishness
and navel-gazing. It is these two
vices that often give rise to all the other calamities we suffer. Since we have
lost the sense of sharing, the poorest come to snatch from the poor what is
necessary for their survival, while the rich surround themselves with all the
protections to preserve, for themselves alone, the fruit of national growth,
all shame drunk. While elsewhere, the public power allows everyone to have at
least the bare necessities to live. We try to reduce social disparities by
taking from large fortunes to meet the needs of the poorest. Everyone is
allowed to feel comfortable in their fundamental rights. Unfortunately, this
coveted power has become the only place of illicit enrichment. For this, the
end justifies the means.
4.
What God Expects from the Power of Men
Power is not an end in itself. It is at the service of the
common good. To serve the common good is to ensure that all citizens are equal
before the law, that national wealth, the fruit of everyone's labour, benefits
everyone, that the security of property and people is ensured, etc. As long as
this is done by those who are momentarily in power, as long as the authority
"respects the native rights of man and acts by persuasion as much as
possible without unnecessarily abusing coercion, the citizen responds to
authority with civil obedience" and responds "without waiting for the
intervention of any constraint whatsoever" (Jean-Yves Calvez, La politique et Dieu, Cerf, Paris, 1985, p.
60). It follows that it is "the common good itself that gives authority to
authority" (Ibid.). To obey,
under these conditions, is not only to obey men but to obey God, the source of
all authority. John XXIII calls this " paying
homage to God " (Pacem in terris,
1963, no. 50). Such obedience elevates man. If, on the contrary, man were to
obey a tyrannical, corrupt, bloodthirsty or racist power, this obedience would
reduce him to the rank of the animal. A man worthy of the name must say 'no' to
such power."
Moreover, faced with a power that would like to found itself – a power that
would like, on its own authority, to give itself its legitimacy – Paul's verse
to the Romans is a real explosive. "All power comes from God" must be understood:
"No power is based on itself".
Where political power is in the illusion of a self-foundation, sacralizes
itself and finally comes to idolize itself, the Christian opposes an "absolute transcendence": God. All power rests on an authority
that transcends, precedes and founds it. Without this (divine) authority,
(political) power is nothing.
The foundation being absolutely transcendent no particular power can claim
to appropriate it, to be its equal. To make God the authority on which
political power is to put politics back in its place – a very limited place –
and to break with all forms of absolutization of politics. To make God the
source of all power is to put the Emperor (or President) in his place once and
for all. Let's put it another way, God (as
authority) is the ultimate end of politics (as power). But it must be understood in the double sense
of the final word. God is the vocation (end and end) of politics, which implies that
political power be brought back to Christ the Lord. God is the suppression (end in
the sense of the end point) of politics, so the Kingdom of God is never
confused with a human theocratic reign.
2. the African Leaders’ propensity for power and honours
In order to
understand why most of African political and religious leaders maintain a
stronghold on power and long-serving leadership across the continent, it is
important to examine the perception of leadership by the masses. Africans are
complacent with governments for life and the abuse of power largely because of
the tendency to revere political and religious leaders. ‘The sacred role as
assigned to traditional leaders has been transformed to political and religious
leaders. Instead of being servants in the spirit of democracy, leaders are
lords worshipped by groups of sycophants. They are looked up to by the masses
like prophets to transform their lives. Simply being a friend to someone in
government or to Christian leader is a source of social prestige. The services
that politicians are supposed to deliver become favours and favours need to be
paid for. Political elites are respected within their societies, honoured
during gatherings and are considered bosses for life.
In Africa, if we think that the politician is the only
one obsessed with power, it is a mistake. The man of the Church is no less. The
accession to the leadership of a Christian community is a daily obsession of
some pastors. The thirst for power does not only concern pastors; the laity are
not left out. Having a position in the
hierarchy of the Churchor a theological institution is not only social
mobility, but also an ascent to glory and honor.
To this end,
ecclesial weight cannot be established according to the depth of faith or
spiritual maturity, but rather according to the title one bears. The
higher a leader has a title, the more he is listened to, revered and adored.
The adulation of a religious leader by his members, and by the other pastors
thus becomes the vector of all excesses. In other words, the pastor
appropriating a great ecclesial title is without fail surrounded by a cohort of
adulators who are only there to take advantage in their turn of certain
appointments in the community. These collaborators then offer their
spiritual leader absolute submission. Because he is obeyed and feared,
the "Bishop", the "Apostle", the "Founding
President" regularly feeds on this dream of unlimited, absolute, unshared
and uncritical power. No one else can therefore dare to lift a finger to denounce
his ecclesial deviances.
Contrary to Paul's writings in 1 Tim 5:17, these religious
leaders appropriate double honor, not because they "struggle with
speech and teaching," but because they want to make people talk about
themselves, occupy the media scene and show their airs by making room for
exuberance. Therefore, how can we be surprised if the Churches are often struck
by factional struggles on the occasion of synodal elections whose primary challenge is to elect a leader according to God's
will, but which are ultimately transformed into a means of access to honors and
money?
And God in all
this? Could we not say that they strip God of His authority and clothe
themselves in it? Do all these titles carried by these religious leaders really
contribute to the spiritual edification of Christians? We don't think so. For
Jesus himself avoided honors and honorary titles. And his criticism of the
religious authorities of his time, for such behavior, was in a very acerbic
tone: "... They do all their actions to be seen by men. Thus, they wear
wide phylacteries, and they have long fringes to their clothes; they love the
first place in feasts, and the first seats in synagogues; they like to be
greeted in public places, and to be called by men Rabbe, Rabbe..."
(Matthew 23:2-11).
Paul, likewise,
believes that the temptation of personality worship can disqualify him from
being a servant of Christ: "My desire is to please men? If I still sought
to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Gal.1:10). For those
who seek to please men are "traitors, carried away, swollen with pride,
loving pleasure more than God, having the appearance of piety but denying what
is forcibly done... (2 Tim 3.4). And finally, Paul exhorts that "no
one therefore put his glory in men... (1 Cor 3:21). As he himself is
an example to follow, he testifies to his behavior: "We have never sought
to be applauded by men, by you more than by others, even though as apostles of
Christ we could have imposed authority on you" (1Thes 2:6-7). Paul thus
puts his pride in weakness and wants to imitate Christ who from rich became poor,
from divine condition humbled himself to the point of dying on the cross.
The temptation to appropriate power looms in particular
for those who are called the "founders of the Church", or who
have worked for the flourishing of the Churches on which they now sit as
patriarchs. For them, the legitimization of power is often more
affective. What results from this is this: “We obey the leader because we
love him”. The leader uses his personal "charisma" to
subjugate the faithful. The love of the Chief leads to consider him as
perfect and all-powerful, in short to deify him. We abandon his soul, his
health, his family life, even his life altogether. There is a great closeness
between the type of attitude we describe and the worship of pagan gods that the
Bible questions so harshly.
Other religious leaders base the legitimization of their
power on tradition. The main strength of the support on tradition is to avoid
debate. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary to be part of the tradition that
everyone respects and not to contest anything. Any critical approach is, this
time, particularly difficult because it requires going against the evidence. In
other words, the protester is considered a dangerous element, because obedience
to the leader is absolute. This has been transmitted, learned from generation
to generation, it is part of the manual of good manners, proper uses. This has
hardly been said, barely articulated, not discussed. It should be noted that
the power of the Pharisees was also based on the traditions of which they were
the custodians, the interpreters, the guardians, but also on a moral
legitimation. The strength of moral legitimation comes from the mode of
repression it implements. The guardians of the Temple are often in inaccessible
positions. They propose a moral code without grace and mercy where they recover
positions of injustice in the name of respect for principles. Pastors can thus
manipulate the faithful by enjoining them that "all authority comes from
God." As mentioned above, the motivation of Church members can be produced
by manipulating their affects. They are deprived of the right to speak on the
pretext that they are incompetent, and that they do not have an overall vision
of the problems to be solved. Finally, most churches establish a code of
conduct, implicit or explicit, which should not be derogated from.
Conclusion
Paul's verse to the Romans is a real explosive. "All power comes from God"
must be understood: "No power is based on itself". Where political
power is in the illusion of a self-foundation, sacralizes itself and finally
comes to idolize itself, the Christian opposes an "absolute transcendence": God.
All power rests on an authority that transcends, precedes and founds it.
Without this (divine) authority, (political) power is nothing.
The foundation being absolutely transcendent no
particular power can claim to appropriate it, to be its equal. To make God the
authority on which political power is to put politics back in its place – a
very limited place – and to break with all forms of absolutization of politics.
To make God the source of all power is to put the Emperor (or President, or
religious leader) in his place once and for all. Let's put it another way,
God (as authority) is the ultimate end of
politics or leadership (as power). But it must be understood in the double sense
of the final word. God is the vocation (end and end) of politics, which implies that
political power be brought back to Christ the Lord. God is the suppression (end in
the sense of the end point) of politics, so the Kingdom of God is never confused
with a human theocratic reign.
Jimi ZACKA, PhD
A full
analysis of the legitimacy of an anti-imperial Pauline hermeneutic far exceeds
the scope of this study. Wright (2004: 82-88 and 2005: 69-79) emphasizes what
he sees to be Paul’s anti-imperial themes throughout his writings, and I am
indebted to him for the concept of Jesus’ vs. Caesar’s lordship. For an
even-handed overview and analysis of this topic, consult Kim (2008), who makes
the case that a strong anti-imperial Pauline hermeneutic is difficult to
maintain. Despite Kim’s conclusions, however, it seems unwise to completely
ignore the implications of Christ’s lordship on both Roman believers in the
first century and on North American ones today. The fact that Romans 13:1-7 is
such a stumbling block to those in the anti-imperial camp and such an “anomaly”
when compared with the implications of Paul’s anti-imperial passages (such as 1
Thess 5, alluded to by Wright [2005]) seems to necessitate a nuanced
approach that hears the arguments of those on both sides of this theological
debate. Cf. Bray, Gerald, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture: Romans. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publisher,
1998.
The
commentaries and resources consulted in this study provided A.D. 57 as a
consensus view of the date of composition of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Cf. Carter,
T. L. “The Irony of Romans 13.” Novum Testamentum (BRILL) Vol.
46, no. Fasc. 3 (July 2004): 209-228.
P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the
Romans: A Commentary, trans. S. J. Hafeman (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox, 1994), 198-208; J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans AB 33 (New
York: Doubleday, 1993), 662-63. Also, consult Dunn,
James D. G. Romans 9-16. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1988. pp 768-69.
The
background information in this paragraph comes from the helpful discussion in Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter
to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
