Borg (1973) - A New Context for Romans Xiii

7/25/2019 Borg (1973) - A New Context for Romans Xiii

1/15

New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

A New Context for Romans xiii

Marcus Borg

New Testament Studies / Volume 19 / Issue 02 / January 1973, pp 205 - 218

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500003945, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500003945

How to cite this article:Marcus Borg (1973). A New Context for Romans xiii. New Testament Studies, 19, pp205-218 doi:10.1017/S0028688500003945

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 147.142.186.54 on 25 Jun 2016


2/15

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54

ASC RIPTION AS A LIT ER AR Y FORM 2O5

Lateron in Matthew there is another conditional b eatitude

(xi.

6). The

logical extension of this development is to have beatitudes expressedin future

rather than

in

present terms, since their conditional nature implies that their

conditions

may

be

met

at

any

time, present

or

future.

And

this occurs

in

Matthew xxiv.

46.

Other examples

are

Luke

xiv. 14; xiv.

15; James i.

25;

1 Peter iii. 14;

and

other conditional beatitudes

not

expressed

in

future terms

are Jo hn xiii.

17 and 1

Peter

iv.

14.

I t iseasy to see how the conditional beatitude came about. In a senseall

of the gen eral beatitudes

are

conditional

in

intent if not

in

form.

To

say,

as in

Isaiah lvi.2, 'Blessedis the man who does this 'is to set up a condition which

any

man may

fulfil

by

'doing this ' .

To

phrase

the

beatitude

as You

willbe

blessed

if

you

do

this '

is

merely

to

alter

the

style

of

expression,

not the

meaning

of

the beatitude.

Yet the

fact remains that

the LXX

translators

did

not

use the

specifically conditional phrasing

and

the NT writers

did.

The

difference

may

be nothing more than the difference between literaryand

oratorial style, between writers who were writing

to be

read

and

writers used

to addressing their audience face-to-face.But thedifference is there.

T E R E N C E Y. M U L L I N S

New

Test.Stud.19, pp. 205-218

A NEW C O N T E X T FO R R O M A NS X I I I

Even among scholars whose approach to Rom ans xiii

has

been to locateit

meticulously within its historical context, the chapter has generally been

regarded as

a

sourceofuniversally va lid principles relatingto the Christian

concept of civil auth ority .

1

This article offers an alternative exegesis:an

interpretation which depends upon setting Paul's words within the context

of Jewish nationalism.

Its

contention

is

that Pau l's famous generalizations

about governing authorities were intended,

not

as abiding principles to be

applied

in

every situation ,

but

as specific advice to par ticu lar people facing

a historically identifiable

set of

circumstances.

There are four ingredients in the arg um ent: first, a perception of the

probable

Sitz imLeben Jesu

of certain sayingsnow found in the Sermonon

the Mount; second,

an

exam ination

of

Romans x ii; third,

a

reconstruction

of

the situation of

the

Roman church; fourth, a consideration of Ro ma ns xiii.

1-7

in

the

light

of

the above.

I. JESUS AND NATIONAL RESISTANCE

A considerable amount of recent research has shown that

the

milieu

in

which

1

For

a survey

of

twent ieth-century research

see G.

Morrison, ThePowersthatBe (London, 1960).
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/


3/15


2O6 MARCUS BORG

Jesus conducted his ministry was characterized by latent and open conflict

between Palestine and Rome and frequent eruptions of particular acts of

revolutionary violence against Rome by the national liberation movement,

a movement inspired at its best by genuine piety.

1

A careful reading of

Josephus has always shown this, and the recent discoveries at Qumran add

even more evidence for the conflict between Rome and Judaism. In parti-

cular, the War Scroll manifests a community which envisaged a future

conflict between themselves and Rome; so intense was the hostility that

Rome and the Roman forces are explicitly identified as Satan and his

hosts.

2

It is virtually certain that the sayings ofJesus about non-violence and non-

retaliation must be interp reted against this back grou nd. These sayings, whose

authenticity is not seriously in question, are found in material peculiar to

Matthew

3

as well as in Q_:

Luke vi. 27-290, 32, 35a = M att. v. 396, 44, 46 : But I say to you tha t hear, Love

your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for

those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. . .

If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even the

Gentiles love whose who love t h e m .. .But love your enemies and do good...

To the

hearers

of Jesu s' teach ing, these words would have h ad a conc rete

reference and relevanc e: to speak of enemies in th at situation m ean t first and

foremost to speak of

Rome.

T he w ords mea nt, in short, ' Love your enemies,

the Romans ' .

4

They constitute a repudiation of the path of armed national

resistance.

T ha t this is the proba ble Sitz im LebenJesu for these words is strengthened

by a consideration of the antithesis of Matt. v. 43-4 between what the

hearers of Jesus have hea rd said by others ('L ove your ne ighbour

and hate

your

enemy )

and what Jesus says ('Love your enemies'). The first half of the

antithesis does not necessarily mean that Jesus or Matthew thought that the

Pentateuch contained the injunction to hate one's enemy; it simply means

that someone had interpreted an injunction of the Pentateuch to mean ' Ha te

your enemy'.

5

The Qumran documents have provided us with specific

passages which enjoin hatred of enemies as well as an atmosphere of hatred

for Rome, Belial and his forces.

6

Hence the likelihood is that Jesus was

rep ud iating the ideology of Qu m ra n, as well as manifestations of the m ilitant

1

Though their conclusions vary about the relationship of Jesus to this atmosphere, see W . R.

F arm er , Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York, 1957); O. Cul lm ann, The State in the New

Testament

(New York, 1956); M. Heng el ,

Die Zeloten

(Leiden,

1961

; S. G. F. Brandon,

Jesus and

the ealots (Manchester, 1967).

J

Th e opponents are called theKittimin the War Scroll; a virtual consensus identifies them with

Rome.

8

Matt. v. 39a, 41.

4

See Farmer, op .

cit.

pp. 201-2.

6

D . D aube ,

The New Testament and RabbinicJudaism

(London, 1956), p. 56.

E.g. iQS i. 9-10; ix. 21-2; iQM,

passim.


4/15


A NEW CONT EXT FOR ROMANS X III 207

spirit in other groups.

1

It follows that these sayings of Jesus ar e no t prim arily

generalizations about passive non-resistance, but are spoken to a concrete

situation, counselling his hearers no t to join in arm ed resistance to R om e.

We have emphasized the original inten t of this ma terial because some of it

reappears in Romans xii. To that we must now turn.

II .

ROMANS

X II . 14-21

There is a strong affinity of subject matter between the synoptic words of

Jesus that have just been cited a nd Ro man s xii. 14-21. Furthermore, the

specific content of these verses can be traced back to a Palestinian milieu.

They comprise essentially two elements: echoes of two dominical words

(vv.

14-15) and a Semitic code originating in Palestinian Christianity, which

Paul buttresses with two quotations from the Old Testament

(vv. igb-20).

The existence of a Semitic code in these verses was first suggested by D.

Daube, who argued that the presence of participles used as imperatives

points to a He brew or Aram aic code as a source which P aul used.

2

In a recent

article in this jou rnal C. H . Talbert essentially approves of Da ube 's insight,

bu t observes that D aub e's position leaves certain questions unanswered which

he tackles by arguing that Romans xii. 14-21 contains redaction as well as

tradition.

3

He concludes that xii. i6a-i6b, 17a, i 8 - ig a and 21 form a

Semitic code of ethical instruction, which almost certainly took shape in

Palestinian Christianity.

4

The unifying theme of this code is the proper attitude of the Christian

toward his enemy

:

5

do not return evil for evil, live in peace with all men, do

not avenge yourselves. To this Paul adds the dominical word about blessing

those who persecute you, and two quotations from the Old Testament

consistent with the tenor of the code: do not seek vengeance, for vengeance

belongs to Yahweh (Deut. xxxii. 35); and if your enemy hungers, feed him

(Prov. xxv. 21-2).

In the Palestinian m ilieu in which Jesus taugh t and in which the S emitic

code took shape, we have already argued that' Love your enemies' referred

to disavowal of a militant anti-Roman policy. Is it possible that it also has

this intention here, that Paul is telling the Roman church to avoid entangle-

ment in an anti-Roman policy? If

so,

then Romans xiii. 1-7, which follow

immediately upon this code, would naturally be interpreted in the same

1

O .J . F. Seitz, 'Love Your Enem ies',

N.T.S.

xvi (1969-70), 49 -52 ; see also W. D. Davies,

The Setting

of

the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 245-8.

2

D. Daube, 'Participle and Imperative in

1

Pe ter', in E. G. Selwyn,The First Epistle

of St

Peter

(London, 1958), pp. 467-88 , esp. 471, 476,480-1.

3

C. H. Talbert, 'Tradition and Redaction in Romans xii.9-21' ,

N.T.S.

xvi (1969-70),

83-93.

4

Ibid. p. 91.

5

Cf. the judgment of C. H . Dodd, The Epistle

of

Paul

to

the Romans (London, 1932), p. 196: he

titles the section 'Love as the Principle of Social Ethics', and adds that xii. 14, 17-21, refer to

relations between Christians and those outside the community (p. 198).


5/15


8 MARCUS BORG

context: do not attach yourselves to the militant policy advocated by certain

Jewish groups,for the R om an governm ent is God's minister of jud gm en tat

this particular point in history. There is, of course, no

a priori

reasonfor

thinking that

the

teaching of Jesus was necessarily reapp lied

to

situations

exactly analogous to the situation in which

it

was originally spoken. But

it

is

a possibility deserving examination. To assess this possibility, it is necessary

to examine the situation of the Roman church.

III. THE CHURCH IN ROME

In order to affirm tha t these words are intended by Pa ul to carry the same

meaning as they did in the ministry of

Jesus,

we would have to show that the

Roman congregation needed this advice; that is, that it or a considerable

portion

of it

might have been tempted

to

adopt

an

antagonistic attitude

toward the Roman state.

It is comm on to say that we know very little about the church in Rom eat

the time when Paul wrote.

1

W ha t we do know is thatit hada fair number of

Jews

in

it. Th e fourth-cen tury writer Am brosiaster cites

a

tradition t ha t the

Christian community in Rom e arose am ong Ro m an Jews who then evan-

gelized Gentiles,

2

a tradition indirectly supported by Acts ii. 10, which

reports the presence of Roman Jews among the pilgrims

at

Pentecost. The

contents of the epistle po int toa mixed Gentile and Jewish m emb ership, with

perhaps a slightly greate r degree of Jew ish influence tha n in the churches

founded by Paul.

3

Furth er, it is proba ble on a

priori

grounds that many of the

Gentile members were originally attached to the synagogues as 'God-fearers',

so that even they had an original association with Judais m . Jud aismand

Jewish communities constituted the matrix of Christianity. The Christian

tradition and the socio-cultural characteristics of Christian comm unities

eventually evolved away from their Jewish origins, but

it

would be naive

to

suppose that after only two decades of Christian history any comm unity

inco rpo rating Jew s in its foundation was largely detached from Jewish affairs.

Roman authorities were sociologically justified in the fifties in their policy of

regarding Christianity

as a

Jew ish sect. Hence events which affected

the

R om an Jewish com mu nity could be expected to be of concern to the Christian

community in Rome as well. Thus there are solid grounds for assuming that

we can learn something about the Ro ma n chu rch by asking abo ut the R om an

Jewish community.

W e must ask two questions ab out the Jewish comm unity

in

Rom e. W as

there co ntinuing co ntact between Jews in Rom e and Palestine so thatthe

chaotic events

in the

homeland w ere known abou t among Ro ma n Jews?

1

E.g. A. Nygre n, Commentary on Romans (London, 1952), p.4.

8

Ci ted wi th approval by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh ,

1895), p . xxv; and Dodd, op. cit.p. xxvii .

3

D odd , op. cit.p . xxvii i ;J . B. Lightfoot, Philippians(London, 1890), pp . 1 6-17.


6/15


A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XI II 209

Second, was the Roman community subject to someof the same stressesas

were Jews

in

Palestine

so

that the re existed from time

to

time

a

common

bond of anti-Roman sentiment?

To

the

first question, several factors point conclusively

to an

affirmative

answer. For all

Jews,

Jerusalem was the geographic centre of their faith. Th e

50,000 Roman Jews,

1

like other Jews, paid the temple tax and wenton

pilgrimage to Jerusalem ,

2

w here there was perha ps even a synagogue assigned

to Roman 'Libert ini ' .

3

Large numbers of Ro m an Jews w ere either former

Jewish prisoners of war o r descendants of prisoners taken captive by R om e in

various campaigns.

4

Delegations from Palestine to Rom e were frequent,

5

and

both Herod Agrippa and his son were residents in Rom e. Moreover, Rom e

as the imperial capital was the centre for political, cultu ral and economic

traffic. A ll ideas, like all roads, ran to Rom e, an d especially wh en a n audien ce

of 50,000 awaited them. We may thus conclude that events in Palestine were

known about by Roman Jews.

To the second question an equally positive answer can be given. In 4 B.C.,

in the succession controversy following the death of Herod the Great,two

events point to the sympathy of Rom an Jew s for Jewish nationalist sen ti-

ments. While the sons of Herod presented their case in Rome to Augustus,

a delegation of fifty Palestinian Jews arrived to plead w ith A ugustus tha t

Palestine should

be

placed und er

a

governor sent from Ro me ra ther tha n

remaining under the control of the Herods.

6

8,000 Roman Jews supported

the delegation and opposed Archelaus.

7

Initially, the Jewish request for a

Roman governor appears to be anti-nationa list in spirit, b u t this superficial

impression is corrected by the percep tion tha t the H erods w ere detestedas

non-Jewish kings who had no right to the throne.

8

Moreover, the Sanhedrin

could be expected to enjoy considerable autonomy undera Ro m an governor,

far more than under Herod, who had executed members of the Sanhedrin.

9

Indeed, Josephus himself uses the word 'autonom y' to describe the goal

which their request sought,

10

a

re tu rn of contro l of Jew ish dom estic life from

1

A

generally accepted figure; see H. J. Leon,

The Jews of

Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, i960),

pp.

135-6 and the authorities cited in 135 n.

2

E.g. Acts ii. 10; Philo,Legatio

ad Gaium,

156; Cicero,

Pro Flacco,

66-g.

3

So Sanday and Headlam,

op. cit.

p. xxviii, citing Acts vi.

g.

4

Ps. Sol. ii. 6, xvii. 13-14; Ph ilo,

Legatio, 155;

Josephus,

B.J. 1.

157,

Ant.

xiv. 79, perhapsB.J.

11.

68; see E. Schiirer,

The

Jewish People

in the

Time

of Jesus

Christ (Edinburgh, 1893),

11.

ii. 234;

C. Roth,

The

History

of the

Jews

in

Italy(Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 4- 5; G. LaP iana, 'Foreign Groups

in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire',

H.T.R.

xx (1927), 368.

6

Josephus,

B.J.

11. 80 -1 ,Ant. XVII. 30-1;

B.J.

11.m , Ant. XVII. 342-3;

B.J.

11. 243-4, Ant.

xx. 131-2.

*

B.J.

11.80-93,

Ant.

XVII. 299-314.

B.J.

n. 80-1,

Ant.

xvn. 300-1.

8

Deut. xvii. 14-15;T.

Sanh.

iv. 10: 'A king cannot be appointed outside the land of Israel, nor

can one be appointed unless he be eligible for marriage into the priesdy families' (i.e. a full Israelite) .

Earlier the Pharisees had opposed the rule of Herod:

Ant.

xv. 370,

XVII.

42;

B.B.

36 .

9

Ant.

xiv. 175. Cf.Cambridge AncientHistory,x.322-3,326, for the fate of the Sanhedrin and high

priesthood under Herod.

10

B.J.

11.80,Ant. xvn. 300.


7/15


210 MARCUS BORG

the non-Jewish Herods to the Jewish senate.

1

That the Jews of Rom e sup-

ported this request in opposition to the heirs of Herod, who had adorned

(or

desecrated) Palestine with lavish monuments to Rom e and who was known

as the friend of Rom e, is highly significant. T he second event in the same yea r

is the nearly delirious reception which Ro m an Jews gave to the impostor

who arrived in Ro me to claim the Ju de an throne, pretending to beAlexander,

Herod's son by Mariamme.

2

Why such enthusiasm for a presumed sonof

Herod when the other sonsof Herod had so recently been opposed by the

Jewish enclave

in

Rome? Because Alexander

(the

real one, that

is) had

Hasmonean blood

in

his veins through his mother M ariam m e,

3

i.e.,

he

was

among the last of the M accabe es, whose mem ory was one pillar of Jewish

nationalism.

4

But the anti-Roman sentiments of Roman Jews did not need to feed solely

upon sympathy with the aspirations of Palestinian Jews. For, despitethe

vaunted role of the empire as

dejure

p rotecto r of Jewish rights,

5

Rom an Jews

frequently suffered directly from both official Roman policy and the

generalized anti-Semitism

of

the M editerrane an world.

6

Under

the

three

emperors prior to the time when Paul wrote to Rom e, Ro m an Jews suffered

expulsion under Tiberius in A.D. 19,

7

twelve yearsof anti-Semitic policyin

Italy under Tiberius' closest adviser Sejanus,

8

the threat of annihilation

through

the

insane hatred

of

Caligula,

9

and the

inconsistent policies

of

1

V. G. Simkhovitch,

Toward the Understanding

of

Jesus

(New York, 1925), pp. 12-25, rightly

emphasizes the nationalistic basis of the delegation. He concludes, p. 25: 'T hey wanted inde-

pendence ; but if no independence was to be had , the next best thing was cultural home rule under a

Sanhedrin of their own choosing, autonomy that would grant them their own religious traditions.

Such autonomy was unthinkable under a Herodian prince. It was quite conceivable under a

Roman governor.'

2

Josephus,

B.J.

n.

101-10, esp. 104-5;

Ant.XVII.

324-38.

3

Specifically mentioned as

a

reason inAnt.xvn. 330.

4

See Farmer, op .

cil.

chapter six, and 'J uda s, Simon and Athronges?',

N.T.S.

iv (1958), 14755.

6

Roman concessions to Judaism relevant to Jews

in

Rome included exemption from emperor

worship, from military service,

and the

freedom

to

worship

and

have local organizations.

For

Rome's role as protector see E. M. Smallwood, 'Jews and Romans

in

the Early Empire',

History

Today,xv (1965), 233-5. Presentations of Roman policy frequently concentrate on Roman intention

and conclude that

it

was generally benevolent. But such presentations are incomplete unless they

recognize that every oneof the above concessions was violated by individual emperors, advisers

and provincial officials

at

various times from A.D. 19 to the mid-fifties.

6

b io Cassius,

Hist,

xxxvii. 17. 1: 'This class [the Jews] exists even among the Romans, and

though often repressedhas increased to a very great extent...' See also Schiirer,

op. cit.11.

ii. 291-7;

LaPiana,

art. cit.

pp. 389-90; A. N. Sherwin-White,Racial Prejudice

in

Imperial Rome (Cambridge,

1967),

pp.86-101;E. R. Goodenough, The Politics

of

Philo Judaeus (New Haven, 1938), p.4.

7

Josephus,

Ant. XVIII. 81-4.

8

From A.D. 19 toA.D. 31 ; see Philo, Legatio,

159-61,

and In Flaccum, 1; Eusebius,Eccl. Hist. 11.

5.

7. His policies may have extended throughout the empire; they certainly operated in Italy.

8

His hatred ofthe Jews for their failure to conform to hisdesire for deification encouraged

Gentiles in both Alexandria and Palestine to erect altars and images to him on Jewish premises

(Philo,

Legatio,

134-7, 198-202, 334-5),a practice which C. Roth,

op. cit.

p. 10, reasonably con-

jectures affected Jews in Rom e as w e l l : ' . . . if any public synagogues existed [in Rome]

at

the time,

they were either desecrated by the erection of the emperor's statue for adoration or else destroyed'.

For Caligula's contemptuous treatment

of

Philo's embassy

in

Rome,

see

Legatio, 349-67,

and

Josephus,

Ant.

xvm. 257-60;cf. Goodenough, op .

cit.

p. 1: the Roman Jews were treated to the

spectacleofthe embassy trailing . . .the mad emperor month after mon th, stomaching his jibes ,


8/15


A N E W C O N T E X T F O R R O M A N S X I I I 2 1 1

Claudius,

1

who finally expelled them again inA.D.49.

2

Th eir exile app arently

lasted five years until the beginning of the reign of Nero,

3

only one to five

years before Paul wrote to Rome.

That the Roman Jews, even apart from sympathy for the plight of their

com patriots in Palestine, had cause to distrust R om e is obvious. Yet events in

Palestine during the forties and fifties could only reinforce antipathy toward

Rome. Under the procurators Fadus (A.D. 44-6) and Tiberius Alexander

(A.D.

46 -8 ), several Jewish rev olutionary leaders were executed, including the

two sons of the Ju da s who founded the 'fou rth philos oph y' inA.D.6.

4

Possibly

in the same year as Claudiu s' edict expelling the Jew s from Ro m e, some of

the most serious disturbances prior to the war of A.D. 66-70 broke out in

Palestine ; accord ing to Josep hus , thousan ds of Jew s w ere killed at Passover

following an insulting gesture by a Rom an soldier on the roof of the tem ple;

5

moreover, a Roman soldier destroyed a copy of the Torah,

6

an action

reminiscent of the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.

7

Th rou gho ut the fifties,

Cumanus (A.D. 48-52) and Felix (A.D. 52-60) faced Jewish revolutionaries,

crucifying some and engaging in armed battle with others.

8

W hat was the reaction of the R om an Jewish co mm unity to these events in

Palestine prior to the time when Paul wrote? Suetonius' statem ent regarding

Cla udiu s' edict is the only evidence for activity within the Jewish com mu nity

a t th i s t ime:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Rom a expulit -

Since

the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he

[Claudius] expelled them from Rome.'

9

That Chrestus should be read as

Crmstus ( = M essiah) is almost certain;

10

but who is this Christus? It is

holding their peace and keeping their dignity in the face of unceasing abuse and insult'. Caligula's

orders to erect a statue dedicated to himself in the Jerusalem temple (Philo,

Legatio,

188;Josephus,

B.J.

11.185,Ant.xv iii. 261) would have produced an empire-wide pogrom and war

(Legatio,

214-15;

Tacitus,Hist. v. 9) .

1

LaPiana, art. cit. p. 388: 'The solemn confirmation of the Jewish privileges promulgated by

Claudius in

A.D.

41-2 was followed by the practical abolition of the Jewish state when in

A.D.

44,

after the death of Agrippa, Judaea passed under direct Roman administration and the Jewish

nation ceased to have a supreme political representative.'

2

Acts xviii. 2 and Suetonius, Claudius, xxv. 4, agree that it was a general expulsion. The third-

century historian Dio Cassius,Hist. LX.6. 6, states that it was a ban on Jewish assemblies in R ome.

The present writer favours the combined and earlier evidence of Acts and Suetonius; but even if

Dio is correct, the order is a prohibition of the exercise of Juda ism in Rom e. Th eCambridge Ancient

History,x, 500-1, affirms that

two

distinct incidents are involved: Dio refers to a b an on meetings in

A.D.41, Acts and Suetonius to the expulsion in A.D.4 9; this possibility is accepted by F . F. Bruce,

'Christianity under Claudius',

B.J.R.L. XLIV

(1962), 314-15, and granted by W. H. C. Frend,

Martyrdom and Persecution

in

the Early Church(Oxford, 1965), p. 160. If correct, Claudius' policy was

even more harsh and inconsistent than normally thought.

3

Sanday and Headlam, op .

cit.

p. xxii.

4

Josephus,

Ant.

xx. 2-5, 97-9,

102-3.

*

B.J.

11.224-7 (30,000 died);

Ant.

xx. 105-12 (20,000 died).

6

B.J. 11.

229;

Ant.

xx. 115.

7

See Farmer, Maccabees,

Zealots,

andJosephus,pp. 52-3.

8

B.J.

11.232-46, 253-65;

Ant.

xx. 118-36, 160-72.

8

Suetonius, Claudius, xxv . 4; see n. 2 above.

10

Tertullian,Apol.3 , refers to the tendency of Roman emperors to pronounce the

i

of Christianus

as ane.See also his

Ad.

Mat. 1. 3; L actantius,Instit. iv. 7. 5.


9/15


212 MARCUS BORG

comm on to interpret this asareference to the messiah Jesus- i.e. to Christian

prea chin g in R om e wh ich caused disturbances in the synagogues of sufficient

magnitude to lead Claudius to expel the Jewish community. This inter-

pretation requires the rider that Suetonius is confused, for he states that this

Christus was

in

Rome

in the

forties

of

the first century

- a

claim that

is

difficult

to

reconcile with

the

career

of

the historical Jes us Tw o factors

accountfor the dominance of this interpretation: the desire to find extra-

biblical references to Jesus, and the presumed difficulty of supposing that

there was anti-R om an Jew ish messianic agitation in the Ro man capital

itself.

The first factor, of course, has no evidential value; and the second

factor isno longer so formidable, given the ch ronicle of the R om an Jew ish

community's experience. Moreover, messianic hopes which involved libera-

tion from Rome were not unknown

in

the Diaspora, though they had

to be

quite covert. The supposedly apolitical Philo not only awaited the messianic

husbandman, bu t would swing an axe with him when he came ' ,

1

an axe

aimed at the Rom an oppressor. LaP iana, writing a bou t the commun ityin

Rome, finds that this hope for the messianic kingdom coupled with the

proclamation of Rom e's eternity by pag an augurs and oracles accountsfor

the antithesis between the R om an and Jewish systems: 'H er e weretwo

programs of universal expansion inc om patible the one with the other.'

2

In

short, messianism was not confined

to

Palestine.

Accordingly, we suggest that Suetonius' reference

is

to Jewish messianic

agitation in Rom e, provoked both by th e experience of the Ro m an Jews and

sympathy with the contemporaneous aspirations of and outrages suflfered by

Palestinian

Jews.

Several factors count in favour ofthis interpretation. First,

Luke knows of the expulsion, but does not connectit with C hristian preach -

ing.

3

Second, Luke reports tha t the leaders of the Ro m an Jewish com mu nity

were willing to listen to Paul's presentation of the gospel on the grounds that

they knew little of the new sect;

4

this willingness is hardly consistent with the

hypothesis that the whole com mun ity had been expelled a decade earlier

because of Christian preaching, though it is consistent with the hypothesis

that th e expulsion was due to Jewish messianic agitation. T hird, we no longer

have to say in a rath er pa tronizin g fashion t ha t Suetonius is confused; cre dit

can be given to him for knowing what he is saying. If this suggestion is

correct, th en there is concrete evidence that some of the Jew s in Rome shared

1

Goodenough, op .

cit.

pp. 24-7, 115-17.

s

LaPiana,art. cit.p. 384.

8

Acts xviii. 2. Lestit be objected that Luke would not report sucha fact even if he knew of it,

it should be noted that he does report Jewish agitation

at

Christian preaching elsewhere; that is,

his concern is not to conceal disturbances produced by Christian missionary proclamation, but to

point out that the Christian gospel,

properly

understood posed no threat to the public order.

* Acts xxviii. 16-22. The re is no inconsistency between this lack of knowledge and the presence of

a Christian community in Rome that still had relations with the Jewish community, for the Jewish

community numbered 50,000 and theChristian comm unity perhaps a few hundred. Thusthe

Christian community would obviously know of the Jewish community, though not all segments of

the Jewish community would necessarily have first-hand knowledge of the Christian community.


10/15


A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII 213

the hope

for a

liberated Palestine,

a

liberation th at involved anti-R om an

action. If it is incorrect, the fact yet rem ains t ha t the Jewish com mu nityin

Rome had ample reason

to

be antipathetic toward the em pire.

1

These events must have been of concern to the Roman church as well. Not

only did many of its members have an original association with Jud aism in

that they became Christians through the portals of Judaism, eitherasJews or

by attachment to the synagogue as 'Go d-f earers', as me ntioned earlier, but

there was a continuing relationship between Jewish Christians and non-

Christian Jews in Ro me throu gh families, friends an d comm ercial relation-

ships.

2

M oreover, Jewish Christians experienced w ith Jew s the expulsion from

Rome by Claud ius. For R om an Christians living in close proximity to this

Jewish community with these experiences, having shared some of th eex-

periences, the following question is likely to have presented

itself:

what is to

be the attitude of the new community to the an ti-Rom an sentimentsof the

Jewish community brought about by her recent and present sufferings?

That this wasa concern of the Roman church is confirmed by the content

of Romans as a whole.

3

I t must be noted first th at the question of Israel

receives more emphasis

in

Romans than

in any

othe r Pau line letter,

a

curiosity which is explained by the above account of the Rom an church.

More pointedly, Paul eventually answers directly

the

particular question

which we have adduced, but he precedes it with

a

theological substru cture on

the status of Israel in which he ha ndles two prio r an d relevant questions. Does

Israel have some special claim on God's grace w hich com mits God to

preserving their particularity and separateness, that is, their nationhood? If

so,

then engagement in precipitate action against Rom e to preserve th at

nationhood makes sense, for God's help can be expected. Alternatively,if

she has no special claim on God, are her sufferings then a sign that she has

been rejected by God?

To the first question, Paul answers with an em phatic negative. Those

features

to

which first-century Ju da ism comm only pointed as signs of God's

special favour are systematically reviewed and re-interpreted in such a way

asto nullify their national significance: the confidence t ha t G od's judg m en t

means punishment primarily for the Gentiles (ii.

1-10);

possession of th e

Torah (ii. 11-24); circumcision (ii. 25-9); descent from Abraham (iv. 1-25,

ix .

6

ff. .

None of these commits God to preserving Israel's particularity, her

nationhood; for all, Je w and Gen tile alike, have sinned, and all, Je w and

Gentile, are now justified in the same way by God's gracious act in Jesus

1

We are not arguing that

all

Rom an Jews shared these views, only that there a re sufficient

reasons for affirming thata substantial number did.

8

Some members of the Roman church continued to follow Jewish food laws (Rom. xiv. 14-21) and

thus must have patronized Jewish food shops.

8

We are not claiming that this question is the primary reason why Paul wrote to Rom e. But we

are arguing thatit is one question which Paul sought to deal with and that it accounts for some of

the particular content of hisletter.


11/15


21 4 MARCUS BORG

Christ

(i. 16, ii. 9-10, iii. 9, 23-4,

29-30).

So the

foundation stone

for

precipitate action is destroyed.

But

if Israel

has

no special claim on God's

grace,

do her

present sufferings mean that

she has

been rejected

so

that there

is

no

Christian obligation

to

Israel?

The

answer

is

equally em phatic:

by no

means;

and the

extensive section

in

chap ters ix-xi deals with this que stion,

especially chapter

xi.

But

the

question of

the

church's obligation to Israel

still remains, though the framework for an answer has been laid, and this

brings

us

to Ro m ans xiii.

IV. ROMANS XI II. I -7 IN A NEW CONTEXT

1

I t

has

often been claimed that this passage does

not

fitvery smoothly either

into

its

immediate context

or

into R omans

as

a

whole;

it

is

an

independent

excursus',

2

a 'self-contained envelope completely independent of

its

con-

text ' .

3

Indeed,

so

disruptive doesi t seem tha t

one

scholar

has

argued th atit

must be a non-Pauline interpolation.

4

However,

our

interpretation argues

that

it not

only fits into

its

imme diate context,

but

that

it

also

has an

intimate

connection

to

Romans

as a

whole.

The

connection lies

in the

question

of

the

Roman church's obligation to Israel.

Paul too feelsa deep

and

agonizing obligation

to

Israel: '

I

feel

in my

heart

great grief and ceaseless pain.

For

I could wish that I myself were separated

by

a

curse from Christ

if

tha t would benefit

my

brethren,

my

human

kinsmen-

the

Israelites.'

5

But

that obligation, though it extends so far as

being willing to surrender one's

own

salvation, does not entail jo iningin

Israel's cause against Rome: instead,

the

words

of

Romans

xii.

14-21,

already discussed, affirm: do not return evil for evil, live in peace withall

men,

do not

avenge yourselves, bless those

who

persecute

you.

Imm ediately

following these words is the opening phrase of Ro mans xiii, artificially

separated from Romans xii by

the

later chapter

and

verse divisions: Le t

everyone

(i.e.

every Christian

in

Rome)

6

subject himself

to the

supreme

authorities.' To say this in this context to this church is to

say,

'Your

obligation to Israel cann ot encompass participation in their cause against

Rome. '

7

Tha t

is,

Romans

xiii.1-7

continues the thoug ht of Rom ans xii.

14-21

rather than being a 'self-contained env elop e'. As such,it is notintended as a

1

Since the interpretation of Romans xiii for which we are arguing does no t depend directly

upon exegesis of individual wordsor verses, but on the context within which it is set, we shall not be

concerned with a verse-by-verse detailed exegesis.

2

O. Michel, cited though no t approved of by G.E . B. Cranneld,

A

Commentary on Romans 12-13

(Edinburgh, 1965),

p .

61 .

3

J . Kallas, Romans 13.1-7: An Interpolation , N.T.S. xi (1964-5), 365, and authorities cited

on pp. 365-6.

4

Ibid.

6

Rom. ix. 2-3, adopting the translation of C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans(London,

1957). P- 74-

6

Cranneld, op .cit.p. 72.

7

Cf. Dodd, op .cit.pp . 2014, for an exegesis that sees Jewish nationalism in the background.


12/15



generalized statement about the Christian's attitude to all civil authorityat

all times, but a statement with a particular meaning to the Rom an church

in their particular situation.

Th at Paul's words have this particularized mea ning here is supported not

only by their im mediate juxtaposition to Rom ans xii. 14-21, but also by the

organic relation between Romans xiii and the rest of Rom ans which this

interpretation permits. Why does Paul urge the Roman church to submit to

Roman authority? The answer is implied in Paul's theological substructure.

Paul is convinced tha t wh at Christ doesis to span the chasm between Jew

and Gentile, a conviction that he expresses not only in Romans (i. 16,

iii. 2 3-4, 29-30), b ut elsewhere as well: 'T he re is no such thing as Jew and

Greek...for you are all one person in Christ Jesus' (Galatians iii. 28).In

Ephesians ii. 11-21,

1

Paul describes Christ as 'our peace, who has made us

[Jew and Gen tile] both one, who has broken down the dividing wallof

ho stility... tha t he might createin himself one new m an in place of the two,

so making peace, and might reconcile us both [Jew and Gentile] to God in

one body thro ugh the cross, thereby bringing th e hostility to an en d' . Christ

bridges the chasm

but Jewish nationalism can only widen it, first, because

it perpetuates the incorrect theological notion tha t God 's purpose is pri-

marily for the Jews, and second, because of the social and military hostility

which

it

engenders between Jew

and

Gen tile. Therefore

it is not

God's

purpose

a t

this time in history to further tha t ca use : thus ' anyon e who rebels

against this authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who resist

have themselves

to

thank

for the

pun ishm ent they will rece ive' (xiii.

2) .

'

Do

you wish to avoid fearing h im w ho is in auth ority? Th en do right [which

in this context means to abstain from resistance], for the government is

God's agent working for your goo d' (xiii. 3-4 ). B ut if you do wrong, be

afraid, for he does n ot bea r the sw ord (


13/15


2 l 6 MARCUS BORG

history,

1

so

now Rome

is

God's m inister of jud gm en t against th at particu-

larity wh ich separates Je w and Gen tile. This suggests that Pau l is not speaking

generally of the status of civil government but,

by

analogy to Jere m iah and

Isaiah,

of a

particular task assigned

to

this particular government

at

this

timein history. In passing,it should be no ted that this affinity acqu its P au l

of the ch arge of being over-impressed by his favourable trea tmen t asa Roma n

citizen or un critical in his praise of Ro me which, like any grea t power, could

be brutal and insensitive.

2

For Paul's words do not mean that he saw Rome

as positively good any more than

the

words

of

Isaiah and Jerem iah mea n

that they were blind to the barbarism and paganism of Assyria and Babylon.

3

The same point

is

made

by a

consideration

of

the sw ord-bearing role

of

the authority (


14/15



sword wielded by Assyria or Babylon as an instrumen t of God's judgm ent

against Israel.

1

If we assume the biblical background of the term, then


15/15

2 l 8 MARCUS BORG

harnessed in the service of Christ because ofhisvictory over them,

1

or thata

just ruler encourages good deeds and curbs the worst excesses of sinfulness.

2

Instead, this statement also finds its home in the particular context which we

have affirmed. Since salvation for Paul is fundamentally corporatean d

involves the reconciliation of Je w and Gen tile into one body, the Rom an

government contributes to this work of Christ ('your goo d') to the extent

that it restrains the perpe tuation of that particularity which partially pro -

duced the hostility. Thus Paul's advice to the R om an Christians to subject

themselves to Rom e was not offered prim arily for prud entia l reasons (no t

only to avoid retribu tion), but also because pa rticipation in Israel's cause

would defeat a central purpose of the gospel for which Christ died.

W hen Paul w rote this passage to the Christians in Rom e Jud aism was on the

brink

of

catastrophe

as a

result

of

its lon gstanding resistance

to

Roma n

imperialism. An em erging Christianity, founded by a Je w w hom the R om ans

had crucified - regarded still by Rome as a Jewish sect, an d inextricably

implicated, by history and culture, by ideology and associational patterns, in

the Jewish world

-

was inevitably caught up in the crisis of Jewish-Roman

relations. What was the right posture to adop t toward Rom e? Th is wasa

burning question for Diaspora and Palestinian communities alike, one certain

to underlie any theoretical interest in the status of civil authorities.

Against such

a

background Paul,

a

Christian pro ud of

his

Jewish heritage,

writing to a C hurch still in co ntact with Jud aism , in a city where the R o m an -

Jewish confrontation existed in taut microcosm, broached the subject of civil

authority. The above argument supports what would in any case appear to

be a strong

primafacie

assum ption: that Paul's advice was not theoretical, nor

vaguely general, and certainly not adulatory in its attitude toward Rome;

that it advocated an imm ediate policy, based upo n Pa ul's understand ing of

the purpose for which Christ died, for negotiating a specific political crisis.

1

See Cullmann,

op. cit.

pp . 50-70, 95-114. Ou r interpretation does not exclude the possibility

that loualai hasa double reference to both Roman authority and an extra-terrestrial power, but

argues that primary illumination of the passage comes from the context for which we are arguing.

a

Cranfield, op . cit.p. 75.

Documents

Borg (1973) - A New Context for Romans Xiii