A double-voiced reading of Romans 13:1–7 in light of the imperial cult

Sung U Lim

doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2475

Abstract

Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of double-voicedness and James Scott’s theory of public and hidden transcripts, this essay investigates the colonial context of Romans 13:1–7 with particular attention to the Roman imperial cult. It is my contention that Paul attempts to persuade the audience to resist the imperial cult, whilst negotiating colonial power and authority. It is assumed that colonial discourse is, by nature, a double-voiced discourse in that the public transcript of the dominant and the hidden transcript of the suppressed coexist in a continued state of internal tension and conflict. Seen in this light, Paul as a colonised subject parodies the public transcript of the elites in his own hidden transcript. However, Paul’s doubled-voiced discourse finally turns out to be subversive against the dominant culture by suggesting that ultimate honour, fear, and authority should not be due to the rulers of the Roman Empire but to God.

Highlights

This article aims to explore the double-voicedness of Romans 13:1–7 at both the public and hidden levels, paying particular attention to the Roman imperial cult
My argument is that Paul as a colonised subject parodies the public transcript of the elites in his own hidden transcript
It is through parody that the hidden transcript of the subordinates both co-exists and clashes with the public transcript of the elites

Summary

Introduction

This article aims to explore the double-voicedness of Romans 13:1–7 at both the public and hidden levels, paying particular attention to the Roman imperial cult. The crucial point is that even though Paul affiliates with the colonial authorities at the public level, he persuades the audience to resist them – especially when it comes to the imperial worship – at the hidden level. Romans 13:1–7 is a double-voiced discourse in the sense that it conveys both the voice of assimilation and the voice of resistance in the colonial milieu At this point, it should be kept in mind that Paul, a colonised subject, negotiates the Roman Empire. We can portray Paul as both a colonial and anti-colonial figure, since he ceaselessly compromises between submissive and resistant attitudes in such a way as to parodise the rhetoric of the empire Following this line of reasoning, we can say that Paul rhetorically makes the best of the double-voiced discourse that allows for both compliant and subversive voices simultaneously. My contention is that, in Romans 13:1–7, Paul’s obedient voice at the public level becomes transformed into his resistant voice at the hidden level to such an extent that it grants the Roman emperors divine honours, which, in an apocalyptic perspective, are diametrically opposite to his anti-idolatry stance (Romans 1:18–32) (cf. Jewett 2006:48–49)

Objectives

Conclusion