Political Suicide
Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Romans 13:1 NASB
Governing authorities – Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written a lot of books. Two in particular are blockbusters: Kosher Sex and Kosher Jesus. I can’t say much about the first since I haven’t read it, but the second, Kosher Jesus, is a great piece of fiction. Of course, it was meant to be a serious study, even a scholarly one. But it contains so many mistakes in exegesis, such a lack of understanding of the New Testament text and ethos, and such a tangible polemic against Paul that it is hard to think of it in any other terms than a work of imagination. Boteach goes to great lengths to “demonstrate” that the authors of the New Testament documents edited and altered the true story of Jesus, a Jewish political rebel. He sets himself up as the correct interpreter of the documents, telling the reader again and again what pieces of the gospels are true and what pieces have been “heavily edited.” Of course, how he determines the difference remains unexplained, except for the fact that the “edited” portions are the ones that don’t portray Jesus as the political rebel Boteach wants him to be.
But the most egregious reconstruction of the New Testament comes in his treatment of Paul. Boteach is willing to accept Jesus as a misguided political zealot but still a hero of first century Judaism. But Paul? No, he was a traitor to Judaism, a convert to a new religion and ultimately responsible for accommodating Jesus’ teaching to Gentile ears. Paul, according to Boteach, made Jesus palatable to Rome!
One of the arguments Boteach uses is Paul’s remark about submitting to authorities. It doesn’t surprise me that Boteach uses this passage. He is historically correct when he recognizes that the Christian Church has used Paul’s words to endorse submission to the most vile and corrupt leaders (including, as he notes, men like Hitler). Boteach draws the conclusion that such advice cannot possibly be in line with the ethics of Jesus and must, therefore, have been constructed by Paul in order to make Paul’s new religion acceptable to the brutal powers of the Roman Empire. Boteach would be correct – if his exegesis weren’t so flawed. His history is right. The Church did and does use this verse to assert control over its followers. But Boteach didn’t read Nanos (and probably doesn’t even know about him). Mark Nanos clearly shows that the letter to the Romans is not about pagan politics or governments. Paul’s remarks must be read in the context of his audience, and that audience is the Gentile-Jewish members within the synagogue. Nanos demonstrates that Paul is calling for submission to synagogue leaders. These are the only ones put into position by God and they are the only ones who “will have praise” for righteous behavior. Boteach understands correctly what the Church has taught. He just doesn’t understand Paul (and neither does the Church).
Why should we care about a book that contains such blatant inaccuracies and deliberate misunderstandings? We should care because a lot of people read Boteach as if he were the gospel. This only leads to further schism. Was Jesus Jewish? Of course! Was he a political zealot who mistakenly thought of himself as the Messiah? Boteach says so, but his basis for saying this is the most tenuous re-reading of the text. Was Paul to blame for Christian pogroms against Jews? Boteach says “Yes.” But Bo doesn’t know Paul. (I wonder if he even read Paul’s work). He certainly knows what the Church says about Paul, but he stops well short of real scholarship. Unfortunately, his efforts only contribute to greater antagonism between Christians and Jews. And his claim that all faiths lead ultimately to God makes me wonder if he actually represents Judaism accurately. He does sell a lot of books.
Nevertheless, Boteach’s big mistake grants us a learning opportunity. We must correct the exegetical nonsense about submitting to political authorities! We must read Romans in context! We must stop the terrible proclamation that God endorses whomever happens to be in power in the government. God desires righteousness and when the government does not display righteousness, it is wrong, sinful and destructive! God is not on the side of the king, the prime minister or the president (although they would like us to think so). Boteach shows us just how ridiculous and immoral it is to offer a blanket endorsement of political entities. It’s time to bring Paul’s context back into play. It’s time to say “No,” to unrighteousness no matter where it is found.
We do not submit to evil authorities and Paul never suggests that we should.
Topical Index: governing authorities, submit, Boteach, Kosher Jesus, Romans 13:1
Hi Skip,
Just a short inquiry in regards to the statement that the rulership mentioned is refering to the synagouge leaders. Futher on in this section, Paul makes reference to taxes and tribute as due to those worthy of them. How does that work out in a synagouge/religious community setting?
I know that phoros is a word for tax in the figurative (?) sense but it’s used as the common term for taxes, as we understand them commonly. as well.
Robert Lafoy,
Check this article out by Skip: https://skipmoen.com/2010/12/08/romans-13/
Shalom!
Thx Brian,
I’ve read this particular post before (the link) and I am in agreement with what Skip states both there and in this current post. My concern, however, is the limit that’s placed on governing authorities as restricted to “religious rulers”. (for lack of a better term 🙂 )
It’s not that I disagree that the introductory passages aren’t about those in ruling positions, (under a biblical/scriptural definition) for where else are we to go for a discernment of the application of biblical values, perhaps our current or previous governmental administrators could expound on the daily application of the principles of the Kingdom of God! (NOT!!!)
My interest (currently) lies in whether or not this is expanded by the conclusion of this section which reads thus: ” Render therefore to all their dues:” (pretend that I underlined ALL) and it goes on to say, ” tribute to whom tribute; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
I see some of this in various passages throughout scripture, such as the different way Daniel address Ole’ Nebby vs. his grandson, (?) Beltshazzar (both pagan kings) David in his handling of Saul (undecided whether pagan or not pagan) and of course Yeshua himself in regards to Caiphias vs. Herod vs. Pilate (undecided, Definitely Pagan, pagan with some hope/possibly) I think (for whatever that’s worth) that the term “due” is the combining and central theme.
While you are not required to be in alignment with evil empires and though it may be reqested of us to even put down such empires, if we want to do buisness in Roman territories you ought to pay the toll road taxes if your going to use the road.
tribute to whom tribute; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
YHWH bless you Brian and “Re” Shalom
If Boteach’s major argument is that the historical man was a Jewish rebel then that does indeed coincide with the verdict that was placed over him when he was executed. Arguing against this would be a rewrite of history. There can also be no doubt that someone devoted to the covenant as the historical man was, the covenant being Torah, would see Roman rule as something to be rejected and overthrown, as the nation came back to Torah observance.
It is a shame that the main topic, that of Yeshua bar Yosef being a Torah observant Jew, which is mandatory to qualify as the Mashiakh, is so quickly left for an argument over Paul, who indeed would be considered the founder of a selective Torah movement.
But the conversation seems to have moved to that of authority. Who or what group of men would have been considered the authority for the 1st century after the death of Yeshua bar Yosef haMashiakh? Where did they derive their authority or from where was it given and patterned? If yours is not in line with that authority and pattern then you would not have claim to the heritage of the Mashiakh and would be considered “following your own eyes and heart after which you stray.” Seems even historically for a period of time Paul followed the precedent of authority defined in the Torah. Yeshua bar Yosef certainly followed authority defined in Torah.
Thanks for your comment. Boteach does view Yeshua as a rebel, but only as a rebel and only as a political one. As far as Boteach is concerned, Yeshua was just another Zealot who thought he was bringing about a civil revolution. Boteach conveniently ignores everything Yeshua taught that is contrary to this thesis – and especially anything that suggests Yeshua as divine, as even some sects of Judaism in the first century thought. Over and over, Boteach becomes the self-appointed authority on which Scripture is accurate and which is not. Of course, his big argument is with Paul, not surprisingly. But he reads Paul according to what the Church says Paul said rather than actually reading what Paul says. Again, not surprisingly since the Church has done a wonderful job of ignoring what Paul actually said too.
“… and especially anything that suggests Yeshua as divine, as even some sects of Judaism in the first century thought.”
I agree that Boteach sometimes states his opinions as facts, but he is really doing nothing more than you do based upon no historical data, specifically the above claim of a sect of Judaism suggesting that the Mashiakh could be divine. I can only assume you speak of the NT. That is one of the great assumptions of almost 20 centuries. There are no complete manuscripts of the NT earlier than the 4th century. Only fragments “maybe” date as early as 200 CE over a century and a half past Yeshua bar Yosef’s death. Those fragments are way too small to indicate a divine-man. The clear understanding of Torah-Judaism for over 3000 years, which includes the 1st century, is there is no divine-man. No 4th century document of dubious origins would prove otherwise, i.e. that Torah-Jews believed otherwise in the 1st century. It is simple mathematical logic and historical consistency.
Boteach reasons correctly that a divine-man is contrary to Torah. He is trying, though, to get through the centuries of Christian (divine-man) persecution of his family (the Jews.) He deserves credit for that. His explanation of Yeshua bar Yosef as a rebel at least is a possibility.
Anyone claiming a divine-man can not be willing to enter into a discussion. It is outside of science and objectivity. It simply cannot be proven. It certainly was not a thought of any Torah observant Jew in the 1st century, before that, or after that. A Torah observant Jew would include the Mashiakh himself. The question becomes, who do you say you pattern your life after, a Torah observant Jew or a divine-man that the Mashiakh would not have given any credence to.
I’m sorry to disagree here. I do NOT base this claim on the NT nor do I depend on any Christian documents. Daniel Boyarin, an orthodox Jewish talmud scholar of some world reputation, states quite clearly in his recent book, The Jewish Gospels, that during the first century at least one if not more sects of Judaism existed that believed the passage in Daniel 7 supported a divine Messiah. Boyarin is NOT a Christian by any means. But he echoes Neusner by showing that some sects of Judaism were prepared to accept a divine Messiah. Your comment that “anyone claiming a divine-man can not be willing to enter into a discussion” is outside the realm of objectivity. Go talk to Boyarin. He is Jewish to the core, but he recognizes that Judaism in the first century is not the same as the monolithic version today. Don’t argue the point with me. Argue the point with your own Jewish scholars.
Of course I would need to read Boyarin’s research to understand how he come’s to this conclusion and I don’t have it. But I didn’t say orthodox Jews, I said Torah observant Jews have never given credence to a divine-man, and clearly Boyarin doesn’t follow the divine-man thinking.
To conclude that someone at the time of the book of Daniel’s writing thought a man could be divine requires hard evidence. If he has hard evidence of this then that would indicate that whom he is referring to is NOT Torah observant. It would indicate a Hellenist Roman Jew.
Hellenist Roman pagan Jews certainly existed in the time of Yeshua bar Yosef, just look at the priests that served in the Temple, but they were not followers of Yeshua bar Yosef and they didn’t keep Torah.
Let me try again. Boyarin is the Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture at UC Berkeley. He is one of the top rabbinic scholars in the world today. I think it is fair to assume that he is observant. Every indication suggest so, although I have not asked him. His book is based on Talmudic evidence, and clearly that evidence comes from an observant community. I highly recommend it as you will find copious footnotes citing his material sources.
But I think there is another question in order here. Why do you assume that NO Torah observant Jew could have accepted a divine Messiah? Boyarin, Young, Becker, Reed, Eisenbaum and others demonstrate the there were sects of Torah-observant Jews in the first century who did expect a divine Messiah. It seems to me that your present interpretion of the position of Torah observance clouds your assessment of the historical reality.
Yes, I know that Hellenism affected rabbinic thinking. Hengel established that years ago. But if the Talmud anticipates the possibility of a divine Messiah, why have you closed that door? Aren’t you reacting with as much blindness as today’s Christians who reject Torah? Let’s examine what actually happened before we conclude that it could not happen.
Thanks so much for your input. This I really enjoy. Someone who understands the issues, for a change.
Just one further thought. Bob Gorelik points out that the Messianic hymns from the Oumran community (clearly OLD and observant) also expect a divine Messiah. See 4QHe Frg. 1:4, 1 QHa 3:22, 4Q 491 frg 2, col 1:5-6 and 4Q491 fry 2, col. 1:9. Also see Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
We can very usefully pursue this historical investigation before we get to its theological implications.
It is mathematical logic, discrete set logic, that makes one come to the conclusion that a Torah observant person, Jewish or not, cannot accept a divine-man.
The Torah as a set is finite. It defines the Creator as outside of the physical realm. King Shlomoh put it clearly that the whole world cannot contain Him, 2Chron2:6 and did Daniel disagree with him? If so one of them are wrong. But neither of them need to be wrong. They simply can not mean opposite things. Shlomoh says no to divine-man so Daniel must be agreeing also on that point.
The physical universe is contained also in a set, i.e. all that is physical. But where did it come from? Not the physical. The Creator then by definition is outside the set of the physical. It is simply impossible to have divine-man, both outside and inside the physical universe.
This is how those who keep Torah non-selectively see the Creator. It may be that Boyarin and the rest understand this but their scholarship must meet the muster of logic, science, and accurate history. Remember he is not saying he considers divine-man a possibility. He is saying others do and that is what we must verify. Were these people Torah observant or Hellenist is also a logical question be cause a Hellenist is easily defined. What you haven’t come to grips with is what a non-selective Torah observant person is. We don’t even know if Boyarin is in that set, but that is another question which is not relevant except that you take him as an expert to prove a fact of history instead of using the facts of history. And you and I must not rely on others, be they rabbis, scholars, scientists, or any learned person. It they have figured something out, logic will determine if their calculations and ideas are correct. We can read them and hopefully not have to do the research ourselves but we have to determine that their research is logical.
We will both keep reading, researching, thinking and debating. It’s the righteous thing to do. Thanks for staying with this.
“We will both keep reading, researching, thinking and debating. It’s the righteous thing to do.”
I would only add that it needs to lead to doing Torah. Yeshua bar Yosef said that it was those doing the will of his Father that would enter the kingdom, that is, doing/keeping Torah.
On this point we are in perfect harmony!
Now THAT is how you have a discussion!
Yes,
What a great discussion……keep it up.
In my few spare moments today I have been enjoying this discussion, so thank you! Its what I love about this site and so glad I can access it with the higher internet speed now here in Ethiopia.
Christine
It’s fascinating just to look at the Tanakh and the examples that are given on the topic of political obedience. Two come to mind:
When Ahab wanted Naboth’s vineyard, not by “taxation” but by free exchange, Naboth refused the transaction. Ahab knew he could not “force” the transaction in the Hebrew culture, it’s court systems would have come down on the side of Naboth, so he had to take another tactic to get what he wanted.
The book of Daniel, of course, contains the story of four young men who refused, in one way or another, to submit to the king’s authority. Daniel not only refused to submit, but was deliberately provocative (in my opinion) by opening the window for all to see, as was his custom. No doubt some of his friends suggested he close the window. After all, it was only for 30 days. And we know the outcome.
The first commandment, “no other gods” prohibits the follower of the Messiah from acknowledging any authority that attempts to go beyond its legitimate God-ordained jurisdiction. It is this aspect of biblical understanding that gave impetus to the West and its attempts to establish federalism – limited government – as a political system. And it is just ever so fascinating to find that the word federalism has its association and origin with the word covenant.
Thus, while the context of Paul’s teaching is important, it is not relevant to the question of unbridled obedience to any authority. That is handled quite well in the Torah, and it is hardly likely Paul was trying to change that. And the blood of he martyrs throughout history is evidence that a lot of people were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on that issue.
This is a very provocative discussion, as I have frequently heard this verse preached or referred to in the context of submitting to standing political authorities.
However, my question pertains to your comment about Mark Nanos’ statement that Ro 13:1 is about obeying the synagogue rulers.
I have regularly observed “church leadership” (elders, ministry staff, etc.) refer to Hebrews 13:17 and others as a call for the members to submit to the governing authority over them. I’ve seen this abused time and time again.
How would this be reconciled with Nanos’ statement?
There is no doubt about the abuse. It is found in the Bible as well as the history books. But Nanos is not suggesting that toddy’s contemporary church leadership is anything like the synagogue leaders of Paul’s letter to Rome. First, those synagogue leaders were Torah observant. We can’t say that about the ecclesiastical hierarchy today. Also, the leaders of the synagogue were not part of an established, paid-for hierarchy. And they did not retain “power” unto themselves. They played a role, but only a role, in the larger community. It would be useful to examine how the synagogue functioned in the first century. I can certainly see why church leaders today would want to use the verses to their advantage, but I don’t think Paul had anything like that in mind. Lots more to say about this, but no time right now. See the video lecture on the “Lessons from Israel” series that Bob and I did in 2009. There is an entire hour on the synagogue.