“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[1]
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 [2].
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[3]. 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[4].
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[5]. On the contrary, the imperial administration had very good relations with the populations after the Christians had experienced more unpleasant moments[6]. 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[7].
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[8].
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[9].
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
[1] Jimi zacka is a biblical scholar, Professor of Cultural Anthropology and author of several books and articles.
[2] Read V. Ferim, “Dictatorships in Africa”, Conflicts Trends, vol. 4., 2012, pp.28-35 or Constantine Kawalya-Tendo How Dictators Maintain a Stronghold on Power:A focus on Africa’s Strongmen, Claremont Lincoln University, May 2020.
For this publication see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341070358
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] Ibid., 37.
[7] 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.
[9] Kawalya-Tendo, op.cit.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Remarque : Seul un membre de ce blog est autorisé à enregistrer un commentaire.