Abstract
The Christian and the ruling authorities according to Romans 13:1–7 In this article the question is posed as to the appropriate understanding and applicability of Romans 13:1–7 in modern times and modem political situations, especially in the light of world wide revolutionary tendencies and activities. First the most crucial exegetical questions inherent in and attached to the passage in the history of exegesis are examined and commented on. The conclusion arrived at, is that although the passage as a self-contained unit stands somewhat loose from its paraenetical context and has its parallels in Jewish-Hellenistic thought, there is no reason to minimise the thrust of its admonition to subjection to ruling authorities. This cannot be done either on the grounds that the passage is non-Pauline or on the grounds of metaphysical, historico-political or eschatological considerations. Regarding the understanding and applicability of the passage in our present situation, the conclusion is that the Christian at least should always adhere to the main purport of the passage, but not necessarily unqualified. Because the passage stands hermeneutically in a dialectical relationship to every new situation, it should be treated in a responsible way in such new situation without, however, either letting the situation prescribe the exegesis or letting the passage enforce itself as dogma upon the situation.
Highlights
The Christian and the ruling authorities according to Romans 13:1-7 In this article the question is posed as to the appropriate understanding and applicability of Romans 1 3 :1 -7 in niodem times and modem politi cal situations, especially in the light of world wide revolutionary tenden cies and activities
The conclusion arrived at, is that the passage as a self-contained unit stands somewhat loose from its paraenetical context and has its parallels in Jewish-Hellenistic thought, there is no reason to minimise the thrust of its admonition to subjection to ruling authorities
Because the passage stands hermeneutically in a dialectical relationship to every new situation, it should be treated in a responsible way in such new situation without, either letting the situation prescribe the exegesis or letting the passage enforce itself as dogma upon the situation
Summary
Gaan kyk 'n mens na die geskiedenis van die eksegese van hierdie perikoop en veral na die bantering daarvan gedurende die laaste paar dekades, dan is dit 'n taamlik verwarrende en uiteenlopende prentjie wat hom voor jou ontplooi. Dit word gou duidelik dat daar verskeie probleemvrae rondom die teks bestaan waarmee die eksegese gekonfronteer is en word. Dit is duidelik dat daar by 'n ondersoek na die betekenis en implikasie van hierdie perikoop onvermydelik aan bogenoemde probleemvrae aandag gegee sal moet word, aangesien die antwoord wat op elkeen van hulle gegee word, in 'n m indere of m eerdere mate bepalend sal wees vir die uiteindelike eksegetiese resultaat. Sal hierdie vrae dan ook afsonderlik aan die orde gestel word in 'n poging om tot groter klaarheid oor die teks te kom. Daar sal egter nie 'n detail-eksegese van die perikoop ondem eem word nie, aangesien ek my slegs wil bepaal by wat die kem van die probleem blyk te wees met betrekking tot die perikoop se uitsprake oor die verhouding onderdaan-owerheid
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
