^{page 540 note 1} For a discussion of the critical relevance of this passage to a modern context, cf. Boesak, A. A., ‘What Belongs to Caesar? Once Again Romans 13’ in Boesak, A. A. and Villa-Vicencio, C., A Call for an End to Unjust Rule (Edinburgh, 1986) 138–56.Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 2} This article was given as a short paper at the SNTS meeting at Göttingen 1987 and is reproduced here without substantial modification. The author wishes to thank all those who responded so generously to it.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 1} Cf. Kallas, J., ‘Romans 13.1–7: An Interpolation’, NTS 11 (1965) 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 541 note 2} Ibid., 365; cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen [2], 1957) 280.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 3} Cf. Kallas, art. cit., 367.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 4} Ibid., 367 ff., 374.

^{page 541 note 5} O'Neill, J. C., Paul's Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975) 207;Google Scholarcf. Barnikol, E., ‘Römer 13: Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitbejahung von Römer 13.1–7’, Texte und Untersuchungen 77 (Berlin, 1961) 65–133.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 6} O'Neill, , op. cit., 208 f.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 7} Munro, W., Authority in Paul and Peter (SNTS Monograph 45, Cambridge, 1983) 3.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 8} Cf. Bruce, F. F., ‘Paul and “The Powers That Be”’, BJRL 66,2 (1984) 78 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 1} Cf. Bruce, , art. cit., 80 ff. T. C. de Kruijf read a short paper at the SNTS meeting in Trondheim (1985), ‘The Literary Unity of Rom.12.16–13.8a: A Network of Inclusions’, in which an elaborate study of correspondences was made.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 2} ‘That the paragraph is self-contained is obvious’: Bruce, art. cit., 80.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 3} On the definition of a ‘rhetorical unit’, cf. Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC, 1984) 33 f.;Google ScholarWuellner, W., ‘Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.3 (1987) 455.Google Scholar

^{page 543 note 1} Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans (Eng. tr., London, 1980) 353.Google Scholar

^{page 543 note 2} Lehmann, P., The Transfiguration in Politics (London, 1975) 302Google Scholar, where the reference is to collaboration with J. L. Martyn:see also pp. 35–48. Cf. A. A. Boesak, art. cit., 146 ff.

^{page 543 note 3} For unqualified obedience, Paul would have been more likely to use ύπακούω or πειθαρχέω: cf. Mark 4. 41 par., Acts 5. 29. But it is hazardous to base a case on verbal usage alone: while 1 Pet 2. 18 uses ύποτάσσω of the servant-master relationship, Col 3. 22 and Eph 6.5 have ύπακούω.Google Scholar

^{page 544 note 1} McDonald, J. I. H., ‘Romans 13. 1–7 and Christian Social Ethics Today’, Modern Churchman 29, 2 (1987) 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 544 note 2} Wuellner, W., art. cit., 455.Google Scholar

^{page 544 note 3} Cf. Käsemann's description of ‘the charismatic community’, with reference to 12. 9–21: op. cit., 343–9.Google Scholar

^{page 544 note 4} Ibid., 332 ff.

^{page 545 note 1} Ibid., 351.

^{page 545 note 2} Borg, M., ‘A New Context for Romans XIII’, NTS 19 (1972) 205–18; cf. Suetonius, Life of Nero 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 545 note 3} For a discussion of μάχαιρα, the sword wielded by the state, cf. Friedrich, J., Pöhlmann, W. and Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Zum historischen Situation und Intention von Röm 13.1–7’, ZTK 73 (1976) 149 ffGoogle Scholar

^{page 546 note 1} Op. cit., 350 f.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 2} Annals 15.44.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 3} Cf. The War Rule from Qumran: on which see Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1962) 122–48.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 4} Art. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 5} Tacitus, Annals 13.50.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 1} Cf. Heiligenthal, R., ‘Strategien Konformer Ethik im Neuen Testament am Beispiel von Röm.13.l–7’, NTS 29,1 (1983) 59 f.; Käsemann, op. cit., 325–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 547 note 2} Martin, J. P., ‘Toward a Post-Critical Paradigm’, NTS 33, 3 (1987) 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 548 note 1} The terms epoché (bracketing) and eidetic vision (Gk. τό εδος, hence ‘shape’, or ‘essence’) derive from Husserl and are well known in the phenomenological approach to the study of religion, which is closely related to hermeneutics.Google Scholar

^{page 548 note 2} W. Wuellner, art. cit, 461, where he follows Burke, K., A Rhetoric of Motives (Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1950) 49–59.Google Scholar

^{page 548 note 3} This is not intended as a blanket criticism of such interpretations but simply as an indication of a possible area of weakness which is receiving attention in more recent writings.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 1} E.g., apart from 1 Pet 2.13–17, one might indicate Mark 12.13–17 par., 15.1–5, Luke 23. 6–12, John 18. 8–11,19.11; Acts 4. 5–12, 19 f., 29,5. 29; Rev 13 passim.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 2} E.g., Boesak, A. A., Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation and the Calvinist Tradition (ed. Sweetman, L.) (New York, 1984) esp. 33–41.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 3} Cf. Harries, R., Christianity and War in a Nuclear Age (London and Oxford, 1986) 54.Google Scholar