1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
It would be hard to imagine this could have been written by Paul or a forger after 64 CE.
Note: I have no problem accepting Tacitus' account of the events in Rome in 64. Suetonius also mention Nero's persecution of Christians (without specifying Rome) and Eusebius also alluded to that in History of the Church II, 25:
1. When the government of Nero was now firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the religion of the God of the universe.
2. To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives, every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, ...
3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion.
4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. ...
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote:Another point is what appears in Romans 13: 1-7
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
It would be hard to imagine this could have been written by Paul or a forger after 64 CE.
I don't agree. This could be written with no difficulty whatsoever at any time up to the third century AD, when the real terrors against Christianity begin. The emperors Nero and Domitian are mentioned in the second century sources as persecuting Christianity by way of highlighting the aberration of these two emperors and further by way of implying that only the worst of the Roman emperors (these two famously received damnation instead of apotheosis after death) would do such things. When Origen can say in the early third century that the martyrs are easily numbered, the author of Romans can urge us to obey authority anytime from 30 AD to 230 AD. This passage does nothing to narrow it down.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter, "he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer" and "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad"
would show the author (a Christian) of these words (if written after 64) thought the Christians of Rome, killed by Nero, were wrongdoers and bad.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote:Peter, "he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer" and "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad"
would show the author (a Christian) of these words (if written after 64) thought the Christians of Rome, killed by Nero, were wrongdoers and bad.
This is just you imagining it because you imagine the letter was written before 64 AD. You wouldn't be imagining this if you found a statement to obey authority in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Tertullian, because you already know that they are dated after 64 AD. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no such clear and logical implication that the author was condoning Nero, even if attempting to make logical deductions from the statements in the text would appear to imply this. People talk themselves into seemingly contradictory conclusions for very important social reasons, and they'll be quick to argue their way out of the conviction of a contradiction, but the author of Romans cannot reply to your accusation that he would condone Nero. If he heard it, and if he were writing after 64 AD, would he not echo the conclusion of Tacitus that the isolated incident that then took place was nothing more than the aberrant work of a madman?
See also: Paul in the letters persecuted the church of God, Paul in the letters fought beasts in Ephesus, Paul in the letters escaped Damascus, Paul in the letters had 39 lashings... (Paul in the Acts had the stoning of Stephen and death of John behind him...) accordingly, "Paul" was aware of the persecution of Christians and did not see this as a contradiction to Romans 13 (or he went ahead and said it despite the contradiction).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
See also: Paul in the letters persecuted the church of God, Paul in the letters fought beasts in Ephesus, Paul in the letters escaped Damascus, Paul in the letters had 39 lashings... (Paul in the Acts had the stoning of Stephen and death of John behind him...) accordingly, "Paul" was aware of the persecution of Christians and did not see this as a contradiction to Romans 13 (or he went ahead and said it despite the contradiction).
But Paul and the author of Acts do not blame the Romans for that.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
See also: Paul in the letters persecuted the church of God, Paul in the letters fought beasts in Ephesus, Paul in the letters escaped Damascus, Paul in the letters had 39 lashings... (Paul in the Acts had the stoning of Stephen and death of John behind him...) accordingly, "Paul" was aware of the persecution of Christians and did not see this as a contradiction to Romans 13 (or he went ahead and said it despite the contradiction).
But Paul and the author of Acts do not blame the Romans for that.
This is not on point. Romans 13 does not actually mention Romans either. When taken with the other things I wrote, and weighed against what you wrote, it is only fair to dismiss this superficial argument for attempting to date the epistle before 64 AD.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Romans 13 does not actually mention Romans either.
So who would be the authorities in Rome in Romans 13?
Paul in the letters persecuted the church of God, Paul in the letters fought beasts in Ephesus, Paul in the letters escaped Damascus, Paul in the letters had 39 lashings... (Paul in the Acts had the stoning of Stephen and death of John behind him...)
Paul (not the Romans) persecuted the church of God, Paul escaped Damascus from either Aretas' ethnarch or Jews (depending where you look, but not the Romans) and had his 39 lashes from Jews (2 Cor 11:24) but not the Romans.
In Acts, Stephen is put to death by the Sanhedrin (Acts 6 & 7) and James (John's brother) is executed by Agrippa I (which pleased the Jews) (Acts 12). No Romans here either.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Paul (not the Romans) persecuted the church of God
So it is said. But people in relationship often accuse their partners of 'persecuting' and 'victimizing.' It's all rather open ended once you ignore Acts.
Your attempt at bifurcating Roman good guys from Jewish bad guys aside (and the attempt to see only Roman rulers behind ch. 13 - not that I agree with it), there was a more important point about your argument that I made first.
This is just you imagining it because you imagine the letter was written before 64 AD. You wouldn't be imagining this if you found a statement to obey authority in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Tertullian, because you already know that they are dated after 64 AD. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no such clear and logical implication that the author was condoning Nero, even if attempting to make logical deductions from the statements in the text would appear to imply this. People talk themselves into seemingly contradictory conclusions for very important social reasons, and they'll be quick to argue their way out of the conviction of a contradiction, but the author of Romans cannot reply to your accusation that he would condone Nero. If he heard it, and if he were writing after 64 AD, would he not echo the conclusion of Tacitus that the isolated incident that then took place was nothing more than the aberrant work of a madman?
Of course he would. Your whole argument is circular. Your conclusion is hidden among your assumptions and influences how you read Romans 13 in the first place.
To put it a bit reductively, if you can try to read into chapter 13 that Paul is talking only about ROMAN rulers, then you can try to read into chapter 13 that Paul is talking only about DECENT rulers instead.
The whole argument comes to nothing, anyway. Other texts, such as 1 Peter, are still telling people to obey authority, after 64 AD. Nothing strange about this or that, before or after the fire at Rome.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
