New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS
Additional services for New

Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms 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, pp
205-218 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

ASCRIPTION AS A LITERARY FORM

2O5

Later on in Matthew there is another conditional beatitude (xi. 6). The

logical extension of this development is to have beatitudes expressed in 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 John xiii. 17 and 1 Peter iv. 14.
It is easy to see how the conditional beatitude came about. In a sense all
of the general beatitudes are conditional in intent if not in form. To say, as in
Isaiah lvi. 2, 'Blessed is 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 will be
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 literary and
oratorial style, between writers who were writing to be read and writers used
to addressing their audience face-to-face. But the difference is there.
TERENCE Y. MULLINS
New Test. Stud. 19, pp. 205-218

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS X I I I

Even among scholars whose approach to Romans xiii has been to locate it
meticulously within its historical context, the chapter has generally been
regarded as a source of universally valid principles relating to the Christian
concept of civil authority.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 Paul's famous generalizations
about governing authorities were intended, not as abiding principles to be
applied in every situation, but as specific advice to particular people facing
a historically identifiable set of circumstances.
There are four ingredients in the argument: first, a perception of the
probable Sitz im Leben Jesu of certain sayings now found in the Sermon on
the Mount; second, an examination of Romans xii; third, a reconstruction of
the situation of the Roman church; fourth, a consideration of Romans 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 twentieth-century research see G. Morrison, The Powers that Be (London, 1960).

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

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 particular, 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 nonretaliation must be interpreted against this background. These sayings, whose
authenticity is not seriously in question, are found in material peculiar to
Matthew3 as well as in Q_:
Luke vi. 27-290, 32, 35a = Matt. v. 396, 44, 46: But I say to you that 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 them... But love your enemies and do good...
To the hearers of Jesus' teaching, these words would have had a concrete
reference and relevance: to speak of enemies in that situation meant first and
foremost to speak of Rome. The words meant, in short, ' Love your enemies,
the Romans'. 4 They constitute a repudiation of the path of armed national
resistance.
That this is the probable Sitz im Leben Jesu for these words is strengthened
by a consideration of the antithesis of Matt. v. 43-4 between what the
hearers of Jesus have heard said by others ('Love your neighbour 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 ' Hate
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
repudiating the ideology of Qumran, as well as manifestations of the militant
1

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

Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York, 1957); O. Cullmann, The State in the New
Testament (New York, 1956); M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961); S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and
the ^ealots (Manchester, 1967).
J

The opponents are called the Kittim in the War Scroll; a virtual consensus identifies them with
Rome.
8
4
Matt. v. 39a, 41.
See Farmer, op. cit. pp. 201-2.
6

D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 56.

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

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

207
1
spirit in other groups. It follows that these sayings ofJesus are not primarily
generalizations about passive non-resistance, but are spoken to a concrete
situation, counselling his hearers not to join in armed resistance to Rome.
We have emphasized the original intent of this material because some of it
reappears in Romans xii. To that we must now turn.
II.

ROMANS XII.

14-21

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

Jesus that have just been cited and Romans 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 Hebrew or Aramaic code as a source which Paul used.2 In a recent
article in this journal C. H. Talbert essentially approves of Daube's insight,
but observes that Daube'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, i8-iga 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 milieu in which Jesus taught and in which the Semitic
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 entanglement 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 Enemies', 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 Peter', 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).

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

208

MARCUS BORG

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

Jewish groups, for the Roman government is God's minister of judgment at
this particular point in history. There is, of course, no a priori reason for
thinking that the teaching of Jesus was necessarily reapplied 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 that these words are intended by Paul to carry the same
meaning as they did in the ministry ofJesus, 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 common to say that we know very little about the church in Rome at
the time when Paul wrote.1 What we do know is that it had a fair number of
Jews in it. The fourth-century writer Ambrosiaster cites a tradition that the
Christian community in Rome arose among Roman Jews who then evangelized 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 point to a mixed Gentile and Jewish membership, with
perhaps a slightly greater degree of Jewish influence than in the churches
founded by Paul.3 Further, it is probable 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 Judaism. Judaism and
Jewish communities constituted the matrix of Christianity. The Christian
tradition and the socio-cultural characteristics of Christian communities
eventually evolved away from their Jewish origins, but it would be naive to
suppose that after only two decades of Christian history any community
incorporating Jews 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 Jewish sect. Hence events which affected the
Roman Jewish community 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 Roman church by asking about the Roman
Jewish community.
We must ask two questions about the Jewish community in Rome. Was
there continuing contact between Jews in Rome and Palestine so that the
chaotic events in the homeland were known about among Roman Jews?
1

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

Cited with approval by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh,
1895), p. xxv; and Dodd, op. cit. p. xxvii.
3
Dodd, op. cit. p . xxviii; J . B. Lightfoot, Philippians (London, 1890), pp. 16-17.
8

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

209

Second, was the Roman community subject to some of the same stresses as
were Jews in Palestine so that there 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. The
50,000 Roman Jews,1 like other Jews, paid the temple tax and went on
pilgrimage to Jerusalem,2 where there was perhaps even a synagogue assigned
to Roman 'Libertini'. 3 Large numbers of Roman Jews were either former
Jewish prisoners of war or descendants of prisoners taken captive by Rome in
various campaigns.4 Delegations from Palestine to Rome were frequent,5 and
both Herod Agrippa and his son were residents in Rome. Moreover, Rome
as the imperial capital was the centre for political, cultural and economic
traffic. All ideas, like all roads, ran to Rome, and especially when an audience
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 Roman Jews for Jewish nationalist sentiments. While the sons of Herod presented their case in Rome to Augustus,
a delegation of fifty Palestinian Jews arrived to plead with Augustus that
Palestine should be placed under a governor sent from Rome rather than
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-nationalist in spirit, but this superficial
impression is corrected by the perception that the Herods were detested as
non-Jewish kings who had no right to the throne.8 Moreover, the Sanhedrin
could be expected to enjoy considerable autonomy under a Roman governor,
far more than under Herod, who had executed members of the Sanhedrin.9
Indeed, Josephus himself uses the word 'autonomy' to describe the goal
which their request sought,10 a return of control of Jewish domestic 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; Philo, Legatio, 155; Josephus, B.J. 1. 157, Ant. xiv. 79, perhaps B.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. LaPiana, '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 Ancient History, x. 322-3, 326, for the fate of the Sanhedrin and high
priesthood under Herod.
10
B.J. 11. 80, Ant. xvn. 300.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

210

MARCUS BORG

the non-Jewish Herods to the Jewish senate.1 That the Jews of Rome supported this request in opposition to the heirs of Herod, who had adorned (or
desecrated) Palestine with lavish monuments to Rome and who was known
as the friend of Rome, is highly significant. The second event in the same year
is the nearly delirious reception which Roman Jews gave to the impostor
who arrived in Rome to claim the Judean throne, pretending to be Alexander,
Herod's son by Mariamme.2 Why such enthusiasm for a presumed son of
Herod when the other sons of 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 Mariamme,3 i.e., he was
among the last of the Maccabees, whose memory 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, despite the
vaunted role of the empire as dejure protector ofJewish rights,5 Roman Jews
frequently suffered directly from both official Roman policy and the
generalized anti-Semitism of the Mediterranean world.6 Under the three
emperors prior to the time when Paul wrote to Rome, Roman Jews suffered
expulsion under Tiberius in A.D. 19,7 twelve years of anti-Semitic policy in
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: 'They wanted independence ; 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 in Ant. xvn. 330.
4
See Farmer, op. cil. chapter six, and 'Judas, 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 one of the above concessions was violated by individual emperors, advisers
and provincial officials at various times from A.D. 19 to the mid-fifties.
6
bio Cassius, Hist, xxxvii. 17. 1: 'This class [the Jews] exists even among the Romans, and
though often repressed has 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.

From A.D. 19 to A.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 of the Jews for their failure to conform to his desire 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 conjectures affected Jews in Rome as well:'... 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
spectacle of the embassy trailing ' . . .the mad emperor month after month, stomaching his jibes,

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

1

211

Claudius, who finally expelled them again in A.D. 49. Their exile apparently
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
compatriots in Palestine, had cause to distrust Rome 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 revolutionary leaders were executed, including the
two sons of the Judas who founded the 'fourth philosophy' in A.D. 6.4 Possibly
in the same year as Claudius' edict expelling the Jews from Rome, some of
the most serious disturbances prior to the war of A.D. 66-70 broke out in
Palestine; according to Josephus, thousands of Jews were killed at Passover
following an insulting gesture by a Roman soldier on the roof of the temple;5
moreover, a Roman soldier destroyed a copy of the Torah, 6 an action
reminiscent of the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.7 Throughout 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
What was the reaction of the Roman Jewish community to these events in
Palestine prior to the time when Paul wrote? Suetonius' statement regarding
Claudius' edict is the only evidence for activity within the Jewish community
at this time: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 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 ( = Messiah) 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. xviii. 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 thirdcentury historian Dio Cassius, Hist. LX. 6. 6, states that it was a ban on Jewish assemblies in Rome.
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 Judaism in Rome. The Cambridge Ancient
History, x, 500-1, affirms that two distinct incidents are involved: Dio refers to a ban on meetings in
A.D. 41, Acts and Suetonius to the expulsion in A.D. 49; 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, and Josephus, 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 an e. See also his Ad. Mat. 1. 3; Lactantius, Instit. iv. 7. 5.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

212

MARCUS BORG

common to interpret this as a reference to the messiah Jesus - i.e. to Christian

preaching in Rome which caused disturbances in the synagogues of sufficient
magnitude to lead Claudius to expel the Jewish community. This interpretation 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 Jesus! Two factors
account for the dominance of this interpretation: the desire to find extrabiblical references to Jesus, and the presumed difficulty of supposing that
there was anti-Roman Jewish messianic agitation in the Roman capital
itself. The first factor, of course, has no evidential value; and the second
factor is no longer so formidable, given the chronicle of the Roman Jewish
community's experience. Moreover, messianic hopes which involved liberation 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, 'but would swing an axe with him when he came', 1 an axe
aimed at the Roman oppressor. LaPiana, writing about the community in
Rome, finds that this hope for the messianic kingdom coupled with the
proclamation of Rome's eternity by pagan augurs and oracles accounts for
the antithesis between the Roman and Jewish systems: 'Here were two
programs of universal expansion incompatible 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 Rome, provoked both by the experience of the Roman Jews and
sympathy with the contemporaneous aspirations of and outrages suflfered by
Palestinian Jews. Several factors count in favour of this interpretation. First,
Luke knows of the expulsion, but does not connect it with Christian preaching.3 Second, Luke reports that the leaders of the Roman Jewish community
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 community had been expelled a decade earlier
because of Christian preaching, though it is consistent with the hypothesis
that the expulsion was due to Jewish messianic agitation. Third, we no longer
have to say in a rather patronizing fashion that Suetonius is confused; credit
can be given to him for knowing what he is saying. If this suggestion is
correct, then there is concrete evidence that some of the Jews in Rome shared
1

Goodenough, op. cit. pp. 24-7, 115-17.

LaPiana, art. cit. p. 384.
8
Acts xviii. 2. Lest it be objected that Luke would not report such a 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. There 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 the Christian community perhaps a few hundred. Thus the
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.
s

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

213

the hope for a liberated Palestine, a liberation that involved anti-Roman

action. If it is incorrect, the fact yet remains that the Jewish community in
Rome had ample reason to be antipathetic toward the empire.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 Judaism in
that they became Christians through the portals ofJudaism, either as Jews or
by attachment to the synagogue as 'God-fearers', as mentioned earlier, but
there was a continuing relationship between Jewish Christians and nonChristian Jews in Rome through families, friends and commercial relationships.2 Moreover, Jewish Christians experienced with Jews the expulsion from
Rome by Claudius. For Roman Christians living in close proximity to this
Jewish community with these experiences, having shared some of the experiences, the following question is likely to have presented itself: what is to
be the attitude of the new community to the anti-Roman sentiments of the
Jewish community brought about by her recent and present sufferings?
That this was a concern of the Roman church is confirmed by the content
of Romans as a whole.3 It must be noted first that the question of Israel
receives more emphasis in Romans than in any other Pauline letter, a
curiosity which is explained by the above account of the Roman church.
More pointedly, Paul eventually answers directly the particular question
which we have adduced, but he precedes it with a theological substructure on
the status of Israel in which he handles two prior and relevant questions. Does
Israel have some special claim on God's grace which commits God to
preserving their particularity and separateness, that is, their nationhood? If
so, then engagement in precipitate action against Rome to preserve that
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 emphatic negative. Those
features to which first-century Judaism commonly pointed as signs of God's
special favour are systematically reviewed and re-interpreted in such a way
as to nullify their national significance: the confidence that God's judgment
means punishment primarily for the Gentiles (ii. 1-10); possession of the
Torah (ii. 11-24); circumcision (ii. 25-9); descent from Abraham (iv. 1-25,
ix. 6ff.).None of these commits God to preserving Israel's particularity, her
nationhood; for all, Jew and Gentile alike, have sinned, and all, Jew and
Gentile, are now justified in the same way by God's gracious act in Jesus
1
We are not arguing that all Roman Jews shared these views, only that there are sufficient
reasons for affirming that a 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 Rome. But we
are arguing that it is one question which Paul sought to deal with and that it accounts for some of
the particular content of his letter.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

214

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 emphatic: by no
means; and the extensive section in chapters ix-xi deals with this question,
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 Romans xiii.
IV. ROMANS XIII. I - 7 IN A NEW CONTEXT1

It has often been claimed that this passage does not fit very smoothly either
into its immediate context or into Romans as a whole; it is an ' independent
excursus',2 a 'self-contained envelope completely independent of its context'. 3 Indeed, so disruptive does it seem that one scholar has argued that it
must be a non-Pauline interpolation.4 However, our interpretation argues
that it not only fits into its immediate 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 feels a 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 that 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 joining in
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 with all
men, do not avenge yourselves, bless those who persecute you. Immediately
following these words is the opening phrase of Romans xiii, artificially
separated from Romans xii by the later chapter and verse divisions: 'Let
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 cannot encompass participation in their cause against
Rome.' 7 That is, Romans xiii. 1-7 continues the thought of Romans xii. 14-21
rather than being a 'self-contained envelope'. As such, it is not intended as a
1
Since the interpretation of Romans xiii for which we are arguing does not depend directly
upon exegesis of individual words or 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 not 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- '746
Cranneld, op. cit. p. 72.
7
Cf. Dodd, op. cit. pp. 2014, for an exegesis that sees Jewish nationalism in the background.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

215

generalized statement about the Christian's attitude to all civil authority at

all times, but a statement with a particular meaning to the Roman church
in their particular situation.
That Paul's words have this particularized meaning here is supported not
only by their immediate juxtaposition to Romans xii. 14-21, but also by the
organic relation between Romans xiii and the rest of Romans 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 that what Christ does is to span the chasm between Jew
and Gentile, a conviction that he expresses not only in Romans (i. 16,
iii. 23-4, 29-30), but elsewhere as well: 'There 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 Gentile] both one, who has broken down the dividing wall of
hostility... that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two,
so making peace, and might reconcile us both [Jew and Gentile] to God in
one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end'. Christ
bridges the chasm but Jewish nationalism can only widen it, first, because
it perpetuates the incorrect theological notion that God's purpose is primarily for the Jews, and second, because of the social and military hostility
which it engenders between Jew and Gentile. Therefore it is not God's
purpose at this time in history to further that cause: thus ' anyone who rebels
against this authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who resist
have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive' (xiii. 2).
' Do you wish to avoid fearing him who is in authority? Then do right [which
in this context means to abstain from resistance], for the government is
God's agent working for your good' (xiii. 3-4). But if you do wrong, 'be
afraid, for he does not bear the sword (<popel TT\V ndcxocipccv) in vain; he is
the servant of God to carry out God's wrath (6pyr)) on the offender' (xiii. 4),
on those who further the cause of national liberation for Israel.
The two words 6pyr| and |j&xaipcc lend further support to the interpretation of this passage as a warning against association with rebellion against
Rome. The Roman government is God's minister of 6pyt|; here Paul envisages opyr) as occurring within history, not simply as an apocalyptic event
at the end of history.2 He thus approaches the Old Testament (and perhaps
New Testament) idea of pagan governments as God's instruments of wrath.3
Just as Assyria and Babylon in the eighth and sixth centuries before Christ
were God's ministers of judgment against Israel at a specific moment in
1

We shall not argue whether or not Ephesians was written by Paul; in either case, it is certainly

Pauline in thought.
2
Examples elsewhere in Paul of 6pyi^ as a happening within the historical process: Rom. i. 18,
iii. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 16; cf. G. Stahlin in Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, v, 431-2.
3
See, e.g. Isa. x. 5-6, 9-11; Jer. xxvii. 6-11; Ass. Moses viii. 1; Luke xix. 41-4, xxi. 20-4; perhaps
I Thess. ii. 16.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

2l6

MARCUS BORG
1

history, so now Rome is God's minister of judgment against that particularity which separates Jew and Gentile. This suggests that Paul is not speaking
generally of the status of civil government but, by analogy to Jeremiah and
Isaiah, of a particular task assigned to this particular government at this
time in history. In passing, it should be noted that this affinity acquits Paul
of the charge of being over-impressed by his favourable treatment as a Roman
citizen or uncritical in his praise of Rome which, like any great 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 Jeremiah mean
that they were blind to the barbarism and paganism of Assyria and Babylon.3
The same point is made by a consideration of the sword-bearing role of
the authority (<popel TT)V udxccipocv). For us to say that the authority ' bears
the sword' has become a familiar metaphor for the power of the state to
enforce obedience to laws in general, through coercion if necessary. But there
are indications that the phrase did not have this generalized metaphorical
meaning in the first century. It is unlikely that Paul's meaning is to be sought
in the secular background of the phrase, for ius gladii at this time was a
severely restricted technical term referring to the power of provincial
governors to execute, without being hampered by the laws of provocatio,
soldiers in their command who were Roman citizens; it was not used to
refer to full imperial power until the third century.4 Thus it is unlikely that
Paul is referring to the ius gladii here, unless we suppose that there were in
the Roman church a large number of Roman citizens who were also soldiers
home on leave from duty in the provinces. But to speak of the pagan power
bearing the sword has a very specific and apposite meaning to somebody who
knows the Old Testament. Nowhere in the Septuagint is n&xocipcc used to
denote the power of the government to punish offenders against the law in
general; its predominant use is to refer to a weapon used in warfare, or as a
virtual synonym for warfare ;6 when so used, it most frequently refers to the
1

Kallas, art. cit. p. 374, agrees that the basic world-view of these verses is that God is the ruler
behind the political forces of the nations, but uses this as evidence that the passage cannot come
from Paul, who operated with an apocalyptic-demonic understanding of the world order.
2
See J. Klausner's complaint, quoted by Kallas, p. 369: 'When one considers all the shameful
deeds of oppression, the murders and extortions, of the Roman government in every place where the
hand of its authority reached, and particularly in the lands and provinces where Paul lived and
travelled, one cannot escape a feeling of resentment against this recital of praise for the tyranny of
Caligula and Nero, or of Gessius Florus.'
8
Cf. A. Heschel's description of Assyria in The Prophets (New York, 1969), p. 40: 'Assyria has
been characterized as the nest of the bird of prey whence set forth the most terrible expeditions which
have ever flooded the world with blood. Ashur was its god, plunder its morality, cruelty and terror
its means. No people was ever more abject than those of Ashur; no sovereigns were ever more
despotic, more covetous, more vindictive, more pitiless, more proud of their crimes. Assyria sums
up within herself all the vices. Aside from bravery, she offers not a single virtue.' See also pp. 1625.
For Isaiah's chilling portrait see Isa. v. 26-30, x. 7-14.
4

A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the Mew Testament (Oxford, 1963),

pp. 9-10; also cited by Cranfield, op. cit. pp. 756.

6
It occurs about 183 times in the LXX. Twice it refers to the knife of circumcision (Josh. v. 2-3);
four times it is used as a metaphor (rash words are like sword thrusts, Prov. xii. 18; false witnesses are

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

A NEW CONTEXT FOR ROMANS XIII

217

sword wielded by Assyria or Babylon as an instrument of God's judgment

against Israel.1 If we assume the biblical background of the term, then <popi
Tf|V n&xocipocv would mean to Paul's readers the war-making ability of the
Roman state; more than that, it would be congruent with Rome as a minister
of opyri, for it would suggest that Rome, like Assyria and Babylon, carries
the sword of war as part of God's judging activity.2 It follows from this that
Paul is not thinking in general of civil government's ability to enforce the law,
but specifically of the military power of pagan government as a means of
divine judgment. Moreover, the kind of disobedience that is contemplated
is not every form of law-breaking, but that kind that could be expected to
result in Rome bearing the sword of war: rebellion.
The interpretation of this passage as a particular warning against alliance
with rebellion against Rome resolves one more difficulty: that Paul seems to
take no account of the possibility of the government acting unjustly and
praising the evil and punishing the good.3 So long as we think of Paul's
statement as intended to refer to all civil authority at all times, it is puzzling
and difficult to reconcile with Paul's familiarity with such Old Testament
figures of civil authority as Pharaoh. Would Pharaoh (or Antiochus Epiphanes) be expected to punish those who deserved punishment and work for
the benefit of those who did right? But if we assume the interpretation for
which we are arguing, the difficulty disappears, for there is no doubt that
the Roman government would act against the specific offence envisaged here:
Jewish rebellion.
Finally, it is noteworthy that Paul not only speaks of Rome as a minister of
wrath, but also in a positive sense as ' God's servant for your good'. To what
is Paul referring? It seems unlikely that he is simply saying that stable
governments benefit their citizens by providing a minimal degree of order
and ensuring regular access to such basic necessities as a food supply. Rather,
it is likely that 'the good' here pertains to the Christian's salvation;4 the
Roman government is assigned some positive function regarding salvation.
It seems unnecessary to account for this by arguing that the powers are now
like swords, Prov. xxv. 18; a loose woman is like a sword, Prov. v. 4; the mouth of the servant is
like a sword, Isa. xlix. 2); it also denotes the knife with which Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac
(Gen. xxii. 6, 10) and the swords with which the priests of Baal gashed themselves (3 Kingd.
xviii. 28). In all other cases, it has its literal meaning as a weapon or as a synonym for warfare.
1
As can be seen, from its distribution: one-fourth of the occurrences (45) are in Jeremiah, almost
another fourth (38) in Ezekiel, and 18 more in Isaiah.
a
There are indications in the New Testament and elsewhere that 'Babylon' was a cryptic means
of referring to Rome in the first century. In chapter xxvii ofJeremiah (LXX; chapter 50 in English),
the u&xmpcc is directed against Babylon. Though we have no evidence for this, it is tempting to conjecture that Jewish nationalist groups saw this chapter as an indication that God's sword would be
directed against Babylon = Rome; if so, then Paul turns this expectation upside down and affirms,
in effect, 'The sword will not be turned against Rome, for Rome bears the sword.'
8
Cranfield, op. cit. p. 73.
4
Ibid. p. 74.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

2l8

MARCUS BORG

harnessed in the service of Christ because of his victory over them,1 or that a
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 corporate and
involves the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile into one body, the Roman
government contributes to this work of Christ ('your good') to the extent
that it restrains the perpetuation of that particularity which partially produced the hostility. Thus Paul's advice to the Roman Christians to subject
themselves to Rome was not offered primarily for prudential reasons (not
only to avoid retribution), but also because participation in Israel's cause
would defeat a central purpose of the gospel for which Christ died.
When Paul wrote this passage to the Christians in Rome Judaism was on the
brink of catastrophe as a result of its longstanding resistance to Roman
imperialism. An emerging Christianity, founded by a Jew whom the Romans
had crucified - regarded still by Rome as a Jewish sect, and 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 adopt toward Rome? This was a
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 proud of his Jewish heritage,
writing to a Church still in contact with Judaism, in a city where the RomanJewish confrontation existed in taut microcosm, broached the subject of civil
authority. The above argument supports what would in any case appear to
be a strongprimafacie assumption: that Paul's advice was not theoretical, nor
vaguely general, and certainly not adulatory in its attitude toward Rome;
that it advocated an immediate policy, based upon Paul's understanding of
the purpose for which Christ died, for negotiating a specific political crisis.
1
See Cullmann, op. cit. pp. 50-70, 95-114. Our interpretation does not exclude the possibility
that loualai has a 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.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 25 Jun 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54