engberg pedersen t.- paul's stoicizing politics in romans 12-13. the role of 13,1-10 in the argument...

7/28/2019 Engberg Pedersen T.- Paul's Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12-13. the Role of 13,1-10 in the Argument (JSNT 2006)

1/11

http://jnt.sagepub.com

TestamentJournal for the Study of the New

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X060728362006; 29; 163Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Troels Engberg-PedersenArgument

Pauls Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12-13: The Role of 13.1-10 in the

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/163The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the New TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/163Citations

by Eduardo de la Serna on October 26, 2009http://jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/163http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/163http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/11

JSNT29.2 (2006) 163-172 Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06072836

Pauls Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12-13:

The Role of 13.1-10 in the Argument

Troels Engberg-Pedersen

Department of Biblical Exegesis, University of Copenhagen

Koebmagergade 46, DK-1150 Copenhagen K, Denmark

[email protected]

AbstractThis article argues for the intrinsic coherence of Rom. 1213 by considering the

meaning of the transitions between the various sections of the text. In this light,

the article proposes an understanding of Pauls politics that draws on Stoic ideas

in two important places: 13.1-7 (compared with Seneca,De Clementia 1.1-4)

and the transition between 13.7 and 13.8 (drawing on the Stoic and Pauline idea

ofw(j mh/, as if not). As a formula for Pauls Stoicizing politics in Rom. 1213,the note suggests the following: engagement in this world anddisengagement

from it but total engagement elsewhere.

Key WordsPaul, Stoicism, Seneca, Romans 1213

In this brief follow-up article to Runar Thorsteinssons fine article, I aim

to take the discussion furtherbyaskingabout the function of Pauls Stoic-

like ideas in Rom. 1213 as a whole, but with special focus on the innerconnection of the two chapters as shown in 13.1-10. In this way I aim to

lay bare the precise logic of Pauls politics in the two chapters. Nobody

should want to engage in a discussion for its own sake of similarities and

differences between Paul and Stoicism. We want to understand Paul. And

wewant to use insightsinto contextual similarities and differences to form

a better picture of Pauls own profile and project as shown through those

similarities and differences.

This article is intended to be suggestive, rather than exhaustive. I shall

arguefor a political readingofRom.1213 as a whole that integrates 13.1-

7 completely into Pauls argument while also insisting on the strongest

possible contrast between the external relationship of Christ-believers to

the political authorities and their internal relationship within the group

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/11

164 Journal for the Study of the New Testament29.2 (2006)

itself. Christ-believers are strongly distanced by Paul from the political

authorities whom, as Gods own representatives, they will also loyally

obey. Engagement in this world anddisengagement from it but totalengagement elsewhere this is the formula for Pauls Stoicizing politics

inRom. 1213. Aspart of thisreadingIshall bring in an important passage

from Seneca that has never, to my knowledge, been employed to throw

light on 13.1-7:De Clementia 1.1-4.

The argument has three parts. We must first decide what are the exact

steps in Pauls own argument throughout the two chapters. Here we may

to some extent build on Thorsteinssons analysis, but will also have to

disagree with him in certain places. I shall focus in particular on what I

see as the very important transitions in Pauls argument from one section

to the other. Next we shall consider the Seneca passage in relation to

Rom. 13.1-7. And finally, we must consider the exact transition from 13.7

to 13.8-10. The outcome will be a highly political Paul, who is drawing

heavily on a couple of central Stoic ideas to articulate his own message.

The Transitions in Pauls Argument in Romans 12

Thorsteinssongivesa fineaccountofsomeof the salient features of 12.1-2and 12.3-8. I disagree on one point regarding what is generally recognized

(but not quite by Thorsteinsson) as a central mention ofa)ga&ph in 12.9.1

This is the first transition we need to consider. The syntax is difficult here.

On the hypothesis that Greek participles in Paul should in principle be

read as just that, I have elsewhere argued that 12.9a ( 9H a)ga&ph a)nupo&-kritoj) should be read as constituting the conclusion to a sentence thatbegins precisely with a participle in 12.6.2 Thus in a literal translation,

which also constitutes a kind of paraphrase, 12.6-9a says the following:

Having different gifts...whether prophecy in accordance with the measure

of faith, or (the gift of) service (which should be active) in (actual) service,

or the one who teaches (who should be active) in (actual) teaching...(and)

the one who has compassion (who should show it) in graciousness: Your

love (should be) openhearted!

That is, in all the activities that spring from those different gifts, Pauls

addressees should act out of an un-hypocritical love. The secret in this

1. For the centrality of this, see, e.g., Wilson 1991: 142-48 and 150-52.

2. See Engberg-Pedersen 2000: 265-66. Wilson (1991: 150), by contrast, finds

that 12.9 constitutes a break with the preceding verses and the beginning of a new

literary unit. He is both right and wrong, as we shall see.



4/11

ENGBERG-PEDERSEN Pauls Stoicizing Politics 165

reading lies in seeing how the participle and the statements that follow

about thedifferent gifts leaduptoa kindofcolon (after 12.8: e0n i9laro&thti)

that introduces the main clause (9H a)ga&ph a)nupo&kritoj) as it were in anapodosis. Thus understood, that main clause obtains the kind of weight

that Nestle-Aland has attempted to bring across by letting 12.9a begin a

newsection.Buttheir typographyandpunctuationarewrong. 12.9a should

gowith12.8, and the full stop after 12.8 (e0n i9laro&thti) should be changedto a (Greek) colon, or at least a dash (to indicate the slight element of

anacolouthia that is involved in this syntactical construction).

However, even if the main clause of 12.9a belongs in this way with

12.6-8, it has equally important ties forward. It thus constitutes a genuine

Paulinebridge.3 WhatPauldoesin12.9b-14 is to give an exact repetition

of the syntactical construction of 12.6-9a. Again we have a participle or

in fact ten such participles, with two predicative adjectives added to them

(12.10: filo&storgoi, sc. o1ntej; 12.11: mh\ o0knhroi/, sc. o1ntej) and againwe should place a (Greek) colon after 12.13 to indicate that 12.14 (eu0lo-gei=te tou\j diw&kontaj) constitutes the main clause to which all thoseparticiples have been leading.4 Thus in Rom. 12.6-14 we have two struc-

turally identical uses of a stylistic feature in Paul that I propose to call a

Paulineanacolouthiccrescendo. Romans12.6-9a is a Paulineanacolou-thic crescendo; 12.9b-14 is another one.5

This is all Greek syntax. But it has huge semantic consequences. The

point is this: Pauls mention ofa)ga&ph in 12.9a summarizes and bringsinto the open the essential character of the forms ofin-group behaviour

he has been describing from the very beginning of the chapter. In 12.9b-

13 he spells out various parts of the content of this a)ga&ph, remainingcompletely focused on in-group relationships, whether mutually among

believers or in their relationship with the Lord (12.11). But all this leads

up to an emphatic statement concerning their relationship withoutsiders:

3. This shows why Wilson was right to speak of a new literary unit from 12.9a/b

onwards, but also wrong to separate 12.9afrom 12.6-8. Note how Paul refers to acting

with earnestness (spoudh/) in both 12.8 and 12.11. That is a good gloss on a0nupo/-kritoj in 12.9a.

4. Wilson (1991: 144,myitalics; also 145 and 162) is exactly right when he claims

that the list [of Rom. 12.10-13] creates a climactic, step-ladder effectthat leads up to

the sections central statementwhich occurs in v. 14. Why, then, does he place a

full stop after 12.13 both in the Greek (133) and in his translation (135)?

5. Just to give one more example: 2 Cor. 6.3-11 constitutes a single, huge Pauline

anacolouthic crescendo. Here, too, a colon should be placed after 6.10 (kate/xontej)and 6.11 (To_ sto&ma h9mw~n a)ne/w|gen pro_j u9ma~j ktl.) should be typographically placedin direct continuation of 6.10.



5/11


Bless those who persecute you! This raises a crucial question. Should we

take the relationship between 12.9b-13 and 12.14 to be of the same kind

logically (as opposed to syntactically) as that between 12.6-8 and 12.9a?That is,should wesee Pauls exhortationtoblesspersecutorsasanexpres-

sion of Christian a)ga&ph? Or should we understand the connection insome other way?

On this point I agree completely with Thorsteinsson.6 In Rom. 1213

Paul does notextend Christian a)ga&ph to cover non-believers. Instead, hecontinues (in 12.15-16) to speak about behaviour that falls undera)ga&phin relation to the in-group. And when he then goes on to speak of relations

outside the group (in 12.17-21), he employs a different terminology,

which focuses on the basic contrast between good (a)gaqo&n) and bad(kako&n), that is, on what is objectively good or bad behaviour with noimplication that it springs from thesubjective motivation ofa)ga&ph. Thispoint is of great importance since it also explains the transition from 12.21

to 13.1-7. The latter passage is not speaking ofa)ga&ph. Instead, its themeispreciselythat of doing good (a)gaqo&n) as opposed to bad (kako&n),see 13.3-4.

If we go back to ch. 12, what relationship is envisaged there between

acting internally from a)ga&ph and doing the good externally? Seen from asocialpsychologicalperspective, theanswer is ratherobvious.Transcend-

ing the psychological law of retaliation against outsiders requires the kind

of psychological sense of superiority that comes from having an in-group

set of relationships that is permeated by love. Indeed, it is made possible

by the kind of emotional cross-identification in in-group love that is

expressed in rejoicing with those who rejoice and crying with those who

cry (12.15).

The combined point of distinguishing sharply between acting from

a)ga&ph and doing good (a)gaqo&n) and of seeing a)ga&ph internally as apresupposition for transcending the law of retaliation externally is that

Paul is here verysharply distancingChrist believers from their surround-

ings at the same time as he is exhorting them to do what is conventionally

and of course quite rightly taken to be good. It is this very precise

double attitude that constitutes the core of Pauls politics in ch. 12 no less

than in ch. 13.

6. But against Wilson, who even goes so far as to claim (1991: 131, my italics; see

also 172) that in Romans 12, Paul explicitly extends the application ofa)ga&ph toones dealings with outsiders, people in general, even enemies and persecutors. For

counter-arguments, see Engberg-Pedersen 2000: 276-77 (as concluding 261-77).



6/11


A Stoic Feature of Romans 13.1-7

On the first page of his De Clementia written in about 55 CE to the

young Nero7 Seneca declares that he aims to write about clemency in

order to serve as a sort of mirror that Nero may look into and so find

pleasure from subjecting his good conscience (bona conscientia) to a

round of inspection (Clem. 1.1.1). What will he find when he looks into

this mirror? Two things. First (Clem. 1.1.2) there is a picture of his own

power: Have I of all mortals found favour with Heaven and been chosen

to serve on earth as vicar of the gods? I am the arbiter of life and death

for the nations; it rests in my power (in mea manu) what each mans lotand state shall be ... (LCL). For our purposes, the important elements in

the description SenecagivesofNerospowerare the following three. Nero

has been chosen (electus) to serve on earth as vicar of the gods. Nero is

thesovereignjudge(arbiter) of life and death, good things and bad things,

for all his subjects, namely, all peoples (populi), cities (urbes) and

nations (nationes); all such things fall within his jurisdiction (mea iuris

dictio est). In particular, those many thousand swords (gladii) which

Nerospeace restrains will be drawn at my nod (LCL). Clearly, what we

havehere is a pictureof the emperors power that is closely similar in both

spirit andcertaindetails to theonegivenby Paul in Rom. 13.1-7. But there

is one major difference. Whereas the Seneca passage adopts a perspective

from above, Paul adopts a perspective from below, speaking, as he

does, about the way in which his addressees should behave in relation to

those excessive powers(13.1) that are precisely described by Seneca.

ThesecondthingtobefoundinSenecasmirrorisapicture(Clem.1.1.3-

4) of a ruler who with all things thus at my disposal (LCL) has notacted

unjustlyeither fromanger (ira), fromyouthful impulse (iuvenilis impetus),in reaction to the foolhardiness and obstinacy of men (LCL), or from

that vainglory (gloria) which employs terror for the display of might

(LCL) and is all too often found in connection with great empires (magna

imperia). On the contrary, he has positively let clemency (clementia) as

opposed to (in itself justified) sternness (severitas) have the upper hand in

such a way that he may now say this: Today, if the immortalgodsshould

require a reckoning from me [thus even the absolute ruler may be called

to account by the gods], I am ready to cite the whole human race on my

behalf (adnumerare genus humanum paratus sum) (my translation).

7. Cf. LCL: xi (J.W. Basore): By reason of the allusion to the age of Nero (i. 9.

1), theDe Clementia may be definitely assigned to the year A.D. 55 or 56.



7/11


Senecas picture is of course wholly idealized. He is describing Nero as

he shouldbe, using that picture as a springboard for the exhortation

contained in the rest of the work. However, that fact itself shows some-thingof extreme importancefor grasping themeaningofPaulsownstate-

mentwhenhe,on his side,brings in a closely similar picture of the powers

of this world as acting on behalf of God and in support of behaviour that

isgood. Thepoint is this: apparently, there was an idea in Rome in the 50s

CE of the ruler or earthly rulers acting on behalf of the gods or God in

support of behaviour that is good. This idea writers could take for granted

and presuppose in what else they had to say. Indeed, they could appeal to

it as something that would not be questionedand could then move on

from there to make whatever other points they were bent on making. Seen

in this light there is absolutely nothing strange about the transition from

Rom. 12.21 to Rom. 13.1ff. Believers should conquer the bad (to_ kako&n)by means of the good (to_ a)gaqo&n) (12.21): in so doing, they should besubjected to the powers of this world since these, on their side, represent

God and in themselves support behaviour that is good (13.1ff). We

should conclude that the movement from 12.14-21 to 13.1ff. is so smooth

that it is most unfortunate that Rom. 1213 has traditionally been divided

up into two separate chapters. Romans 13.1-7 is a wholly integrated partof the comprehensive and finely differentiated politics that Paul is articu-

lating for the benefit of his Roman addressees in the two chapters taken

as a whole.

Note how well Pauls reference in 13.5 to conscience (sunei/dhsij) fitsthis interpretation. Believers should not just be subjected to the powers

out of fear of the justanger (o0rgh/ as opposed to the unjust ira towhich Nero had precisely notsuccumbed) with which they would punish

behaviour that is bad. Instead, believers should do what is good because

of their own conscience or self-awareness that such behaviouris good.Thus Paul is appealing from below to the conscience of his addressees

just as Seneca appealed from above to Neros own good conscience

which would celebrate itself when he looked into the mirror held up to

him by Seneca. The (inverted) similarity of these two texts is very close

indeed.8 That should cause no surprise, however. After all, Stoicism does

constitute one (important) segment in Pauls broad context.9

8. One may even say that Pauls claim from below about his addressees

behaviour vis--vis the rulers mirrors Senecas picture from above of the rulers

relationship to his subjects.

9. Brendan Byrne, SJ (1996: 390), gives a number of references for the entirely

correct claim that [t]he belief, pervasive in the ancient world, that human rulers



8/11


If Seneca presented his (conventional) picture of the just, divinely

installed ruler for further purposes of his own, then why did Paul do the

same? What was his purpose in doing so? It is difficult not to avoid theimpression that the purpose of13.1-7 is stated in the last two verses (13.6-

7): that the addressees should pay their taxes.10 This is the reason why he

repeats the basic point about the powers from 13.1-4that they act on

Gods behalfin a particularly emphatic way here. Tax collectors are

nothing less than ministers of God (13.6, leitougoi/...qeou=) with all thereligious overtones of this. Moreover, just as the rulers were indicatively

said to be representatives of God, so the addressees indicatively do pay

their taxes (telei=te in 13.6 is indicative, not imperative) because (ga&r)tax collectors are ministers of God. So, do it(as Paul goes immediately

on to say in 13.7 and now in the imperative)!

The central point to be retained from this comparison of Rom. 13.1-7

with the Seneca passage is as follows. At the time and place of the writing

of these two texts there was a conventional view of the good, divinely

installed ruler to which one might appeal without further ado and then

use the appeal for ones own purposes. To say that this view wasconven-

tional is not to suggest that people did not believe it. On the contrary,

the view was probably generally accepted, otherwise, the appeal wouldhave hadnopoint.Still, asSenecashows, itwasa view that one might then

go on to qualify at least in the way of suggesting that it was not in fact

always literally true. On the contrary, it represented a state of the world

thatshouldbe made true which is why Seneca wrote theDe Clementia.

Do we find the same kind of qualification in Paul, too? Let us consider

our last transition: the one from 13.7 to 13.8-10.

A Stoic Feature of Romans 13.8-10In 13.7 Paul has encouraged his addressees to render (a)podido&nai, thatis, fulfil) ones dues or duties (o0feilai/) to everybody, namely, in such away that nobody has any further demand on them. In 13.8 he repeats the

point Owe nothing to anybody (Mhdeni\ mhde\n o0fei/lete) but then

wielded divine authority comes to expression in a variety of contexts in biblical and

other Jewish literature. It seems, however, that Pauls focus in the passage on to_a)gaqo_n e1rgon (13.3) and to_ kako_n poiei=n/pra&ssein (13.4) fits more immediatelywith a

Graeco-Roman moral conceptualitywhich may of coursealso lie behind the Jewish

Wisdom literature to which Byrne refers.

10. Cf., e.g., Byrne (1996: 391), who claims that in the matter of the payment of

taxes the passage reaches its intended climax.



9/11


adds, strangely, other than (ei0 mh/) loving one another (to_ a)llh/louja)gapa~n). It is curious that commentators do not generally spend many

words on this very peculiar transition.11

What is the exactpointof sayinghere that one may in fact never fulfil the demand to love?

This is where Paul pulls the carpet completely away from a univocal

reading of 13.1-7. The reference to the conventional view of the good,

divinely installed ruler as a background to the exhortation to render ones

dues to each and everybody remains in place and valid within that frame-

work. But it is also radically qualified. There is more to politics than that.

What more? Answer: life within the group (13.8-10, taking up 12.1-13)

and life in the light of the coming salvation (13.11-14), both of which

have an entirely different quality to them than that other life. Thus by

bringing in again a)ga&ph fromch.12,Paulishereofferinga more compre-hensive view of his believers politics, one that supplements the univocal

readingof 13.1-7andcalls foradoubleorbifocal readingof that passage:

Xand also not-X, but Y.12

Can we makethe logic of this reading more precise? We can, by follow-

ing the lead of a non-exegetical, but very insightful reader of Paul: Jacob

Taubes. In his reading of Pauls politics, Taubes suggests (2004: 53-54)

that one should understand Rom. 13.11-14 along the lines of 1 Cor. 7.29-31 as captured in the famous Pauline idea ofw(j mh/ (as if not). Thus thereference to the impending eschaton serves to introduce a radical qualifi-

cation of ways of living that are otherwise also recommended: do this

but do it as if you were notdoing it. Taubess suggestion is a fruitful

one, but perhaps we should locate Pauls making this specific move

somewhat earlier in the passage than at 13.11. After all, the section on the

life ofa)ga&ph in 13.8-10 coheres very closely with that on the eschaton in13.11-14.Andofcourse,theideaofw9jmh/ is not explicitly stated in 13.11-14 at all. But then, is it not precisely this idea that is brought into playwhen Paul contrasts the duties that may be completely fulfilled with those

that remain? Pay your taxes (fulfil your duties in thatfield) as something

that can in fact be fulfilled. And thenforget about itsince the duty has, by

now, been fulfilled. In other words, do it as if not. Or: do it, but without

11. For instance, Byrne (1996: 394) only says that Paul skillfully ties the section to

what has gone before.

12. A philosopher and systematic theologian, Theodore W. Jennings, Jr (2006:

101), is more sensitive than most exegetes to what is going on in 13.8: Here Paul

seems to go beyond debt to indicate a duty beyond debt. The ei0 mh/ seems to me tofunction to indicate a different order than that which went beforeit stands in a

different register.



10/11


paying any special attention to it. That is notwhat matters.By contrast,

fulfil your obligation to love. Or rather: try to fulfil it, always and every-

where. Forthatis what matters. And that kind of life precisely belongswith the eschaton.13

If this is a correct reading of Pauls bifocal politics in Rom. 13 (and

indeed, Rom. 12) as a whole, then we have another Stoic feature at the

heartof his reasoning. For the Pauline idea ofw9j mh/ is in fact a Stoic one.It expresses the very precise form of a good and wise mans relationship

with the present world: with its attractions and distractions, which are all

things that are not (in Stoic terms) genuinely good or bad, but only prefer-

able or dispreferable, that is, without any ultimate importance whatsoever

(adiaphora). In relation to these things one should live w9j mh/. Whatgenuinely matters lies elsewhere.

Summary

I have suggested in this article that we may use some of the Stoic material

to which Thorsteinsson has rightly drawn our attention in this case a

particular passage in Pauls contemporary, Seneca to help us elucidate

what Paul is himself trying to say in the passage under discussion. Herethe question hasbeenabout the exact shape of Pauls politics as witnessed

by Rom. 1213 taken together. I have been particularly concerned to

urge, first, that we never try to exegete either of the two chapters without

bringing in also the other. Indeed, we should read them as constituting a

single chapter,bound together, asnotedbyThorsteinsson,bytheeschato-

logical references in 12.2 and 13.11-14, but also, as we have seen, by the

fact thatPauldraws thesamecrucialdistinctioninbothtraditional chapters

between the character of in-group behaviour and that of behaviour in

relation to outsiders. I have also been particularly concerned to urge thatwe should pay especially close attention to the many transitions within

this text. It is here that we shall find the best clues to the texts overall

13. A word on 13.8-10: Why does Paul bring in the (Mosaic) law here? I have

argued elsewhere that his point is that a)ga&ph as realizedmakes the commandmentsof the law superfluous. For a)ga&ph does not [in fact] do bad to ones neighbour(13.10a) and so the commandments have nothing to address (see Engberg-Pedersen

2000: 272-76). On such a reading, Paul is saying that just as theRoman law (13.1-7)

becomes wholly indifferent once it has been fulfilled(and as we know, it precisely

canbe fulfilled), so theJewish law (13.8-10) becomes irrelevant in the life of the

group that is permeated by love since in such a group it is already fulfilled. This

reading emphasizes the extent to which Paul is in fact doing politics in the passage as

a whole.



11/11


meaning. That meaning, I have argued, lies in what I claim is the formula

for Pauls Stoicizing politics in this text: engagement in this world and

disengagement from it but total engagement elsewhere.14

Bibliography

Byrne, B., SJ

1996 Romans (Sacra Pagina, 6; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press).

Downing, F.G.

1998 Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches: Cynics and Christian Origins II

(London: Routledge).

Engberg-Pedersen, T.

2000 Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Louisville, KY: Westminster/

John Knox).

Jennings, T.W., Jr

2006 Reading Derrida / Thinking Paul: On Justice (Stanford: Stanford University

Press).

Taubes, J.

2004 The Political Theology of Paul(Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Wilson, W.T.

1991 Love without Pretense: Romans 12.9-21 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom

Literature (WUNT, 2/46; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).

14. Do I need to emphasize that the whole brunt of the proposed reading lies in the

logic of the and in this formulation? This constitutes the essence of Stoic ethics. One

must grasp that idea in order to see what Paul is up to. It is reasonable to mention

here that F. Gerald Downing (1998: 280-82) has also argued briefly for a Stoic

background to Rom. 13.1-7 (though without mentioning Seneca). He only thinks,

however, that Paul takes over a Stoic optimism and compliance vis--vis rulers

(1998: 280). This is probably due to the fact that Downing does not discuss the

transition from 13.7 to 13.8. (Thanks to Niko Huttunen of Helsinki University for

reminding me of this passage in Downing.)


engberg pedersen t.- paul's stoicizing politics in romans 12-13. the role of 13,1-10 in the argument...

Documents