^{page 205 note 1} For a survery of twentieth-century research seeMorrison, C., The Powers that Be (London, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Though their conclusions vary about the relationship of Jesus to this atmosphere, seeFarmer, W. R., Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., The State in the New Testament (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961)Google Scholar; Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} The opponents are called the Kittim in the War Scroll; a virtual consensus indentifies them with Rome

^{page 206 note 3} Matt. v. 39a, 41.

^{page 206 note 4} See Farmer, op. cit. pp. 201–2.

^{page 206 note 5} Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 6} E.g. 1QS i. 9–10; ix. 21–2; 1Qm, passim.

^{page 207 note 1} Seitz, O. J. F., ‘Love Your Enemies’, N.T.S. XVI (1969–1970), 49–52Google Scholar; see also Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 245–8.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 2} Daube, D., ‘Participle and Imperative in I Pater’, in Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle St Peter (London, 1958), pp. 467–88Google Scholar, esp. 471, 476, 480–1.

^{page 207 note 3} Talbert, C. H., ‘Tradition and Redaction in Romans xii. 9–21,’ N.T.S. XVI (1969–1970), 83–93.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} Ibid. p. 91.

^{page 207 note 5} Cf. the judgment of Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1932), p. 196Google Scholar: he titles the section ‘Love as the Principle of Social Ethics’, and adds that xii. 14, 17–21, refer to relations between Christians and those outside the Community (p. 198).

^{page 208 note 1} E.g. Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans (London, 1952), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 2} Cited with approval by Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1895), p. xxvGoogle Scholar; and Dodd, op. cit. p. xxvii.

^{page 208 note 3} Dodd, op. cit. p. xxviii; Lightfoot, J. B., Philippians (London, 1890), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} A generally accepted figure; see Leon, H. J., The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 135–6Google Scholar and the authorities cited in 135 n.

^{page 209 note 2} E.g. Acts ii. 10; Philo, , Legatio ad Gaium, 156Google Scholar; Cicero, , Pro Flacco, 66–9.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} So Sanday and Headlam, op. cit. p. xxviii, citing Acts vi. 9.

^{page 209 note 4} Ps. Sol. ii. 6, xvii. 13–14; Philo, , Legatio, 155Google Scholar; Josephus, , B.J. I. 157Google Scholar, Ant. XIV. 79, perhaps, B.J. II. 68Google Scholar; see Schürer, E., The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1893), II. ii. 234Google Scholar; Roth, C., The History of the Jews in Italy (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; LaPiana, G., ‘Foreign Groups in Rome During the First Centuries of the Empire,’ H.T.R.. XX (1927), 368.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 5} Josephus, , B.J. II. 80–1Google Scholar, Ant. XVII. 30–1; B.J. II. III, Ant. XVII. 342–3; B.J. II. 243–4, Ant. xx. 131–2.

^{page 209 note 6} B.J. II. 80–93, Ant. XVII. 299–314.

^{page 209 note 7} B.J. II. 80–1, Ant. XVII. 300–1.

^{page 209 note 8} Deut. xvii. 14–15; T. Sanh. iv. 10: ‘A king cannot be appointed outside the land of Israel, nor can one be appointed unless he be eligible for marriage into the priestly families’ (i.e. a full Israelite). Earlier the Pharisees had opposed the rule of Herod: Ant. XV. 370, XVII. 42; B.B. 3b.

^{page 209 note 9} Ant. XIV. 175. Cf. Cambridge Ancient History, x. 322–3, 326, for the fate of the Sanhedrin and high priesthood under Herod.

^{page 209 note 10} B.J. II. 80, Ant. XVII. 300.

^{page 210 note 1} Simkhovitch, V. G., Toward the Understanding of Jesus (New York, 1925), pp. 12–25Google Scholar, rightly emphasizes the nationalistic basis of the delegation. He concludes, p. 25: ‘They wanted independence; but if no independence was to be had, the next best thing was cultural home rule under a Sanhedrin of their own choosing, autonomy that would grant them their religious traditions. Such autonomy was unthinkable under a Herodian prince. It was quite conceivable under a Roman governor’.

^{page 210 note 2} Josephus, , B.J. II. 101–10Google Scholar, esp. 104–5; Ant. XVII. 324–38.

^{page 210 note 3} Specifically mentioned as a reason in Ant. XVII. 330.

^{page 210 note 4} See Farmer, op. cit. chapter six, and ‘Judas, Simon and Athronges?’, N.T.S. iv (1958), 147–55.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 5} Roman concessions to Judaism relevant to Jews in Rome included exemption from emperor worship, from military service, and the freedom to worship and have local organizations. For Rome's role as protector see Smallwood, E. M., ‘Jews and Romans in the Early Empire,’ History Today, XV (1965), 233–5Google Scholar. Presentations of Roman policy frequently concentrate on Roman intention and conclude that it was generally benevolent. But such presentations are incomplete unless they recognize that every one of the above concessions was violated by individual emperors, advisers and provincial officials at various times from A.D. 19 to the mid-fifties.

^{page 210 note 6} Dio, Cassius, Hist. XXXVII. 17. 1Google Scholar: ‘This class [the Jews] exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent…’ See also Schürer, op. cit. II. ii. 291–7; Lapiana, art. cit. pp. 389–90; Sherwin-White, A. N., Racial Prejudice in Lmperial Rome (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 86–101Google Scholar; Goodenough, E. R., The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven, 1938), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 7} Josephus, , Ant. XVIII. 81–4.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 8} From A.D. 19 to A.D. 31; see Philo, Legatio, 159–61, and In Flaccum, I; Eusebius, , Eccl. Hist. II. 5. 7Google Scholar. His policies may have extended throughout the empire; they certainly operated in Italy.

^{page 210 note 9} His hatred of the Jews for their failure to conform to his desire for deification encouraged Gentiles in both Alexandria and Palestine to erect altars and images to him on Jewish premises (Philo, , Legatio, 134–7, 198–202, 334–5Google Scholar), a practice which C. Roth, op. cit. p. 10, reasonably conjectures affected Jews in Rome as well: ‘…if any public synagogues existed [in Rome] at the time, they were either desecrated by the erection of the emperor's statue for adoration or else destroyed’. For Caligula's contemptuous treatment of Philo's embassy in Rome, see Legatio, 349–67, and Josephus, , Ant. XVIII. 257–60Google Scholar; cf. Goodenough, op. cit. p. I: the Roman Jews were treated to the spectacle of the embassy trailing ‘…the mad emperor month after month, stomaching his jibes, holding their peace and keeping their dignity in the face of unceasing abuse and insult’. Caligula's orders to erect a statue dedicated to himself in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, , Legatio, 188Google Scholar; Josephus, , B.J. II. 185Google Scholar, Ant. XVIII. 261) would have produced an empire-wide pogrom and war (Legatio, 214–15; Tacitus, Hist. v. 9).

^{page 211 note 1} LaPiana, , art. cit. p. 388Google Scholar: ‘The solemn confirmation of the Jewish privileges promulgated by Claudius in A.D. 41–2 was followed by the practical abolition of the Jewish state when in A.D. 44, after the death of Agrippa, Judaea passed under direct, Roman administration and the Jewish nation ceased to have a supreme political representative’.

^{page 211 note 2} Acts xviii. 2 and Suetonius, , Claudius, XXV. 4Google Scholar, agree that it was a general expulsion. The thirdcentury historian Dio Cassius, Hist. LX. 6. 6, states that it was a ban on Jewish assemblies in Rome. The present writer favours the combined and earlier evidence of Acts and Suetonius; but even if Dio is correct, the order is a prohibition of the exercise of Judaism in Rome. The Cambridge Ancient History, x, 500–1, affirms that two distinct incidents are involved: Dio refers to a ban on meetings in A.D. 41, Acts and Suetonius to the expulsion in A.D. 49; this possibility is accepted by Bruce, F. F., ‘Christianity under Claudius,’ B.J.R.L. XLIV (1962), 314–15Google Scholar, and granted by Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), p. 160.Google Scholar If correct, Claudius' policy was even more harsh and inconsistent than normally thought.

^{page 211 note 3} Sanday and Headlam, op. cit. p. xxii.

^{page 211 note 4} Josephus, , Ant. xx. 2–5, 97–9, 102–3.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 5} B.J. II. 224–7 (30,000 died); Ant. xx. 105–12 (20,000 died).

^{page 211 note 6} B.J. II. 229; Ant. xx. 115.

^{page 211 note 7} See Farmer, , Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 8} B.J. II. 232–46, 253–65; Ant. xx. 118–36, 160–72.

^{page 211 note 9} Suetonius, , Claudius, xxv. 4Google Scholar; see n. 2 above.

^{page 211 note 10} Tertullian, Apol. 3, refers to the tendency of Roman emperors to pronounce the i of Christianus as an e. See also his Ad. Nat. I. 3; Lactantius, , Instit. IV. 7. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Goodenough, op. cit. pp. 24–7, 115–17.

^{page 212 note 2} LaPiana, , art. cit. p. 384.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Acts xviii. 2. Lest it be objected that Luke would not report such a fact even if he knew of it, it should be noted that he does report Jewish agitation at Christian preaching elsewhere; that is, his concern is not to conceal disturbances produced by Christian missionary proclamation, but to point out that the Christian gospel, properly understood, posed no threat to the public order.

^{page 212 note 4} Acts xxviii. 16–22. There is no inconsistency between this lack of knowledge and the presence of a Christian community in Rome that still had relations with the Jewish community, for the Jewish community numbered 50,000 and the Christian community perhaps a few hundred. Thus the Christian community would obviously know of the Jewish community, though not all segments of the Jewish community would necessarily have first-hand knowledge of the Christian community.

^{page 213 note 1} We are not arguing that all Roman Jews shared these views, only that there are sufficient reasons for affirming that a substantial number did.

^{page 213 note 2} Some members of the Roman church continued to follow Jewish food laws (Rom. xiv. 14–21) and thus must have patronized Jewish food shops.

^{page 213 note 3} We are not claiming that this question is the primary reason why Paul wrote to Rome. But we are arguing that it is one question which Paul sought to deal with and that it accounts for some of the particular content of his letter.

^{page 214 note 1} Since the interpretation of Romans xiii for which we are arguing does not depend directly upon exegesis of individual words or verses, but on the context within which it is set, we shall not be concerned with a verse-by-verse detailed exegesis.

^{page 214 note 2} O. Michel, cited though not approved of by Cranfield, C. E. B., A, Commentary on Romans 12–13 (Edinburgh, 1965), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Kallas, J., ‘Romans 13. 1–7: An Interpolation,’ N.T.S. XI (1964–1965), 365Google Scholar, and authorities cited on pp. 365–6.

^{page 214 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 214 note 5} Rom. ix. 2–3, adopting the translation of Barrett, C. K., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1957), p. 174.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} Cranfield, op. cit. p. 72.

^{page 214 note 7} Cf. Dodd, op. cit. pp. 201–4, for an exegesis that sees Jewish nationalism in the background.

^{page 215 note 1} We shall not argue whether or not Ephesians was written by Paul; in either case, it is certainly Pauline in thought.

^{page 215 note 2} Examples elsewhere in Paul of όρρή as a happening within the historical process: Rom. i. 18, iii. 5; I Thess. ii. 16; Stählin, cf. G. in Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V, 431–2.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} See, e.g. Isa. x. 5–6, 9–11; Jer. xxvii. 6–11; Ass. Moses viii. 1; Luke xix. 41–4, xxi. 20–4; perhaps I Thess. ii. 16.

^{page 216 note 1} Kallas, art. cit. p. 374, agrees that the basic world-view of these verses is that God is the ruler behind the political forces of the nations, but uses this as evidence that the passage cannot come from Paul, who operated with an apocalyptic-demonic understanding of the world order.

^{page 216 note 2} See J. Klausner's complaint, quoted by Kallas, p. 369: ‘When one considers all the shameful deeds of oppression, the murders and extortions of the Roman government in every place where the hand of its authority reached, and particularly in the lands and provinces where Paul lived and travelled, one cannot escape a feeling of resentment against this recital of praise for tyranny of Caligula and Nero, or of Gessius Florus’.

^{page 216 note 3} Cf. Heschelˇs, A. description of Assyria in The Prophets (New York, 1969), p. 40Google Scholar: ‘Assyria has been characterized as the nest of the bird of prey whence set forth the most terrible expeditions which have ever flooded the world with blood. Ashur was its god, plulnder its morality, cruelty and terror its means. No people was ever more abject than those of Ashur; on sovereigns were ever more despotic, more covetous, more vindictive, more pitiless, more proud of their crimes. Assyria sums up within herself all the vices. Aside from bravery, she offers not a single virtue’. See also pp. 162–5. For Isaia's chilling portrait see Isa. v. 26–30, x. 7–14.

^{page 216 note 4} Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; also cited by Cranfield, op. cit. pp. 75–6.

^{page 216 note 5} It occurs about 183 times in the LXX. Twice it refers to the knife of circumcision (Josh. v. 2–3); four times it is used as a metaphor (rash words are like sword thrusts, Prov. xii. 18; false witnesses are like swords, Prov. xxv. 18; a loose woman is like a sword, Prov. v. 4; the mouth of the servant is like a sword, Isa. xlix. 2); it also denotes the knife with which Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. xxii. 6, 10) and the swords with which the priests of Ball gashed themselves (3 Kingd. xviii. 28). In all other cases, it has its literal meaning as a weapon or as a synonym for warfare.

^{page 217 note 1} As can be seen from its distribution: one-fourth of the occurrences (45) are in Jeremiah, almost another fourth (38) in Ezekiel, and 18 more in Isaiah.

^{page 217 note 2} There are indications in the New Testament and elsewhere that ‘Babylon’ was a cryptic means of referring to Rome in the first century. In chapter xxvii ofJeremiah (LXX; chapter 50 in English), the μάΧαιρα is directed against Babylon. Though we have no evidence for this, it is tempting to conjecture that Jewish nationalist groups saw this chapter as an indication that God's sword would be directed against Babylon = Rome; if so, then Paul turns this expectation upside down and affirms, in effect, ‘The sword will not be turned against Rome, for Rome bears the sword.’.

^{page 217 note 3} Cranfield, op. cit. p. 73.

^{page 217 note 4} Ibid. p. 74.

^{page 218 note 1} See Cullmann, op. cit. pp. 50–70, 95–114. Our interpretation does not exclude the possiblility that έξουσΙαΙ has a double reference to both Roman authority and an extra-terrestrial power, but argues that primary illumination of the passage comes from context for which we are arguing.

^{page 218 note 2} Cranfield, op. cit. p. 75.