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

http://jnt.sagepub.
com
Testament
Journal for the Study of the New
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06072836
2006; 29; 163 Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Troels Engberg-Pedersen
Argument
Pauls Stoicizing Politics in Romans 12-13: The Role of 13.1-10 in the
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/163
The 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 Testament Additional services and information for
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/163 Citations
by Eduardo de la Serna on October 26, 2009 http://jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
JSNT 29.2 (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
tep@teol.ku.dk
Abstract
This 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
of o, q, as if not). As a formula for Pauls Stoicizing politics in Rom. 1213,
the note suggests the following: engagement in this world and disengagement
from it but total engagement elsewhere.
Key Words
Paul, Stoicism, Seneca, Romans 1213
In this brief follow-up article to Runar Thorsteinssons ne article, I aim
totake the discussionfurther byaskingabout the function of Pauls Stoic-
like ideas in Rom. 1213 as a whole, but with special focus on the inner
connection 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
we want touse insights into contextual similarities and differences to form
a better picture of Pauls own prole and project as shown through those
similarities and differences.
This article is intended to be suggestive, rather than exhaustive. I shall
argue for a political readingof Rom. 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
164 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (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 and disengagement from it but total
engagement elsewhere this is the formula for Pauls Stoicizing politics
inRom. 1213. As part of this readingI shall 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 rst 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 nally, 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
Thorsteinssongives a ne account of someof the salient features of 12.1-2
and12.3-8. I disagree on one point regarding what is generally recognized
(but not quite by Thorsteinsson) as a central mention of oyoq in 12.9.
1
This is the rst transition we need to consider. The syntax is difcult here.
On the hypothesis that Greek participles in Paul should in principle be
read as just that, I have elsewhere argued that 12.9a ( H oyoq ovuo-
|pio,) should be read as constituting the conclusion to a sentence that
begins 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, nds
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.
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN Pauls Stoicizing Politics 165
reading lies in seeing how the participle and the statements that follow
about the different gifts leaduptoakindof colon (after 12.8: tv iiopoqi)
that introduces the main clause ( H oyoq ovuo |pio,) as it were in an
apodosis. 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. But their typographyandpunctuationarewrong. 12.9a should
gowith12.8, and the full stop after 12.8 (tv iiopoqi) should be changed
to 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
Pauline bridge.
3
What Paul does in12.9b-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: iiooopyoi, sc. ovt,; 12.11: q o|vqpoi, sc. ovt,) and again
we should place a (Greek) colon after 12.13 to indicate that 12.14 (tuio-
ytit ou, io|ovo,) constitutes the main clause to which all those
participles 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
Pauline anacolouthic crescendo. Romans 12.6-9a is a Pauline anacolou-
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 of oyoq in 12.9a summarizes and brings
into the open the essential character of the forms of in-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 oyoq, remaining
completely 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 with outsiders:
3. This shows why Wilson was right to speak of a new literary unit from 12.9a/b
onwards, but also wrong to separate 12.9a from 12.6-8. Note how Paul refers to acting
with earnestness (oouq) in both 12.8 and 12.11. That is a good gloss on ovuo-
|pio, 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 effect that 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 (|ot_ovt,)
and 6.11 (To ooo qov ovt oytv po, uo, |i.) should be typographically placed
in direct continuation of 6.10.
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, shouldwe see Pauls exhortationtobless persecutors as anexpres-
sion of Christian oyoq? Or should we understand the connection in
some other way?
On this point I agree completely with Thorsteinsson.
6
In Rom. 1213
Paul does not extend Christian oyoq to cover non-believers. Instead, he
continues (in 12.15-16) to speak about behaviour that falls under oyoq
inrelationtothe 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 (oyoov) and bad
(|o|ov), that is, on what is objectively good or bad behaviour with no
implication that it springs from the subjective motivation of oyoq. This
point is of great importance since it also explains the transition from 12.21
to 13.1-7. The latter passage is not speaking of oyoq. Instead, its theme
ispreciselythat of doing good (oyoov) as opposed to bad (|o|ov),
see 13.3-4.
If we go back to ch. 12, what relationship is envisaged there between
acting internally from oyoq and doing the good externally? Seen from a
social psychological perspective, the answer is rather obvious. 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-identication 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
oyoq and doing good (oyoov) and of seeing oyoq internally as a
presupposition for transcending the law of retaliation externally is that
Paul is here very sharply distancing Christ believers fromtheir 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 of oyoq to
ones dealings with outsiders, people in general, even enemies and persecutors. For
counter-arguments, see Engberg-Pedersen 2000: 276-77 (as concluding 261-77).
A Stoic Feature of Romans 13.1-7
On the rst page of his De Clementia written in about 55 CE to the
young Nero
7
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 nd
pleasure from subjecting his good conscience (bona conscientia) to a
round of inspection (Clem. 1.1.1). What will he nd 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 lot
and state shall be ... (LCL). For our purposes, the important elements in
the descriptionSeneca gives of Neros power are the following three. Nero
has been chosen (electus) to serve on earth as vicar of the gods. Nero is
the sovereignjudge (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
Neros peace restrains will be drawn at my nod (LCL). Clearly, what we
have here is a picture of the emperors power that is closely similar in both
spirit andcertaindetails tothe one givenby 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.
The secondthingtobe foundinSenecas mirror is apicture(Clem. 1.1.3-
4) of a ruler who with all things thus at my disposal (LCL) has not acted
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 justied) sternness (severitas) have the upper hand in
such a way that he may now say this: Today, if the immortal gods should
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), the De Clementia may be denitely assigned to the year A.D. 55 or 56.
Senecas picture is of course wholly idealized. He is describing Nero as
he should be, using that picture as a springboard for the exhortation
contained in the rest of the work. However, that fact itself shows some-
thingof extreme importance for graspingthe meaningof Pauls ownstate-
ment whenhe, onhis 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
is good. The point 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 (o |o|o v)
by means of the good (o oyoov) (12.21): in so doing, they should be
subjected 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 part
of the comprehensive and nely differentiated politics that Paul is articu-
lating for the benet of his Roman addressees in the two chapters taken
as a whole.
Note how well Pauls reference in 13.5 to conscience (ouvtiqoi,) ts
this interpretation. Believers should not just be subjected to the powers
out of fear of the just anger (opyq as opposed to the unjust ira to
which Nero had precisely not succumbed) 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 behaviour is 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
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 difcult not to avoid the
impression that the purpose of 13.1-7 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, itiouyoi ...tou) with all the
religious overtones of this. Moreover, just as the rulers were indicatively
said to be representatives of God, so the addressees indicatively do pay
their taxes (titit in 13.6 is indicative, not imperative) because (yop)
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
withthe 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 viewwas conven-
tional is not to suggest that people did not believe it. On the contrary,
the view was probably generally accepted, otherwise, the appeal would
have hadnopoint. Still, as Seneca shows, it was a 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
that should be made true which is why Seneca wrote the De Clementia.
Do we nd the same kind of qualication in Paul, too? Let us consider
our last transition: the one from 13.7 to 13.8-10.
A Stoic Feature of Romans 13.8-10
In 13.7 Paul has encouraged his addressees to render (ooio voi, that
is, full) ones dues or duties (otiioi ) to everybody, namely, in such a
way that nobody has any further demand on them. In 13.8 he repeats the
point Owe nothing to anybody (Mqtvi qtv oti itt) 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 o
oyoov tpyov (13.3) and o |o|ov oitiv/po ootiv (13.4) ts more immediately with a
Graeco-Roman moral conceptualitywhich may of course also 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.
adds, strangely, other than (ti q ) loving one another (o oiiq iou,
oyoov). It is curious that commentators do not generally spend many
words on this very peculiar transition.
11
What is the exact point of saying
here that one may in fact never full 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 qualied. 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
bringingin again oyoq fromch. 12, Paul is here offeringa more compre-
hensive view of his believers politics, one that supplements the univocal
readingof 13.1-7andcalls for adoubleor bifocal readingof that passage:
Xand also not-X, but Y.
12
Canwe make the 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 of o, q (as if not). Thus the
reference to the impending eschaton serves to introduce a radical quali-
cation of ways of living that are otherwise also recommended: do this
but do it as if you were not doing it. Taubess suggestion is a fruitful
one, but perhaps we should locate Pauls making this specic move
somewhat earlier in the passage than at 13.11. After all, the section on the
life of oyoq in 13.8-10 coheres very closely with that on the eschaton in
13.11-14. Andof course, the idea of o, q is not explicitly stated in 13.11-
14 at all. But then, is it not precisely this idea that is brought into play
when Paul contrasts the duties that may be completely fullled with those
that remain? Pay your taxes (full your duties in that eld) as something
that can in fact be fullled. And then forget about it since the duty has, by
now, been fullled. 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 ti q seems to me to
function to indicate a different order than that which went beforeit stands in a
different register.
paying any special attention to it. That is not what matters. By contrast,
full your obligation to love. Or rather: try to full it, always and every-
where. For that is what matters. And that kind of life precisely belongs
with 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
heart of his reasoning. For the Pauline idea of o, q 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 o, q. What
genuinely 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. Here
the questionhas beenabout the exact shape of Pauls politics as witnessed
by Rom. 1213 taken together. I have been particularly concerned to
urge, rst, 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, boundtogether, as notedbyThorsteinsson, bythe eschato-
logical references in 12.2 and 13.11-14, but also, as we have seen, by the
fact that Paul draws thesamecrucial distinctioninbothtraditional chapters
between the character of in-group behaviour and that of behaviour in
relation to outsiders. I have also been particularly concerned to urge that
we should pay especially close attention to the many transitions within
this text. It is here that we shall nd 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 oyoq as realized makes the commandments
of the law superuous. For oyoq 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 the Roman law (13.1-7)
becomes wholly indifferent once it has been fullled (and as we know, it precisely
can be fullled), so the Jewish 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 fullled. This
reading emphasizes the extent to which Paul is in fact doing politics in the passage as
a whole.
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 (JSNT 2006)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

http://jnt.sagepub.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi