Arland J. Hultgren, Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Chapter Seven

The Christian and the government, or perhaps more appropriately, the governing authorities is th focus of this chapter which deals with Romans 13. Hultgren is naturally correct when he suggests that Few NT passages have been more controversial in modern times (p. 466). As is doubtless well known, this chapter was used by Hitler and the German Christians to coerce the Christians of Germany into almost unquestioning obedience to the Third Reich. But it has also been used by people on the far right in every Western country and continues to be used or rather totally misused in many of the same ways. But when the passage is set within its literary and historical contexts, it takes on a different tone. [And] the passage should not be singled out as a brief essay by Paul on the Christian doctrine of the state or Pauls theory of civil government Pauls concern here is not with the state or civil government per se, but with the life of the believer that takes place in the world and within its civic life (p. 467). H. then surveys the ten most popular ways of reading the chapter and takes special pleasure in repudiating that of Mark Nanos, whose reading he describes as One of the least convincing proposals [because it suggests] that, by means of this passage, Paul urged Christians to be subject not to the Roman authorities but to authorities within the synagogues (p. 468). I dont know of anyone who has followed Nanos down this Sackgasse anyway but Hultgren certainly isnt willing to do so. But if none of the usual explanations work, what is the function of this pericope? In order to head off any concerns about his precipitating another civil disobedience upon his arrival in Rome, Paul stresses the importance of civil order and implicitly pledges to refrain from stirring up old issues among persons who are now living at peace with one another within the Christian community itself and with

the Jewish community at Rome [He] does not thereby endorse supreme authority of the state. In fact he relativizes those in authority (p. 469). Even the authority of the Emperor is derived authority. Moving from the state Paul next, according to H., turns his attention to love itself as the fulfillment of the law, observing Whatever moral teaching coheres with the life in Christ, regardless of its source, is taken over by Paul and put to use (p. 481). In all, H.s reading of Romans 13 is balanced and has advantages over the usual ones. Whether he will convince persons like Nanos remains to be seen- but his work is convincing.

Jim West Quartz Hill School of Theology