Against Anarchy. Käsemann, critiquing idealist interpretations, rightly asks how Paul could have forgotten that Rome crucified his Kyrios, and that he himself had been arrested and flogged by government officials on multiple occasions. Rather than legitimizing the government in a general way, Käsemann sees Paul as merely warding off the dangers of anarchy (1980: 356) in response to what Käsemann argued was a burgeoning form of Christian “enthusiasm” that “in virtue of heavenly citizenship views authorities with indifference or contempt” (351). But there is no textual evidence for the existence of a group of eschatological “enthusiasts,” and Käsemann’s hypothesis has suffered from relentless criticism (e.g. McDonald 1989: 544-45).

Wink suggests that perhaps the only point of Romans 13:1-7 is that “governments are indispensable for the preservation of social order and protection against criminals and invaders.” Paul is not here encouraging “blind obedience to an oppressive system. . . . To assert that God created the Powers does not imply that God endorses any particular Power at any given time” (1992a: 67).[1] Wright agrees. “However much the emperor may proclaim himself to be sovereign, without rival in the divine as well as the human sphere, he remains answerable to the true God.” Nevertheless, “Paul’s main aim, within the broad-brush ethical exhortations of chapters 12-13, is to point out that loyalty to Jesus does not mean anarchy in the state” (2000: 172). Wink and Wright, then, would put severe limitations on Paul’s endorsement of government. He is not endorsing Rome itself, but the basic, general task of all governments to protect the innocent by suppressing the violent—to ward off anarchy, as it were.

The only difficulty facing this line of interpretation is that of demonstrating textually that Paul’s audience was in fact entertaining notions of anarchy at all. This is highly unlikely. Perhaps a group of Christians in Rome was participating in the tax revolt which escalated after Nero reneged on his promise of tax reform (cf. Jewett 2007: 798-800; and Dunn 1986: 60). Perhaps some of them were falling increasingly in line with the program of the Jewish Zealots (so Borg 1972). Neither of these possibilities amounts to anarchism. The former pursues reform, the latter revolution. In both cases a more just government is the envisioned terminus.

Thus, those who read this text as a charter against anarchism have oversimplified the scenario. It may remain that Paul is discouraging the church in Rome from public protest, or acts of “civil disobedience,” but that is not anarchy. Neither, for that matter, is inciting riots necessarily an anarchist act, or so Paul would be obliged to argue.[2] The point here is that “anarchy” is what governments typically label dissent, and so we must be cautious not to privilege unconsciously the imperial perspective in our attempts to identify Paul’s.

Labels: New Perspective on Paul, Paul, Pauline Theology, Romans 13