Even if the authorship of the Pastorals is questioned, it remains an argument from silence.
We cannot forbid Paul to speak about something that he has hitherto, for whatever reasons, not mentioned.
Suffice it to say here that nowhere in the passage does Paul contradict an eschatological concept he elsewhere explicates.
paragraph) deep within the paraenetic section of 12:1- is somehow an interpolation due to the questionable nature of chapter 16—an epistolary ending. The problem with chapter 16 cannot be assumed to have occurred in 13:1-7. We may proceed with the confidence that this passage is truly from the hand of Paul. Others have followed in a similar vein for various reasons including the assumption that the letter reads better if understood to refer to a Jewish Christian audience well as the fact that he says that he explicitly addresses them as Gentiles () and says that they have received mercy due to Jewish unbelief—all this seems to indicate a Gentile audience. From the lack of a reference to the church at Rome (i.e. Nero was in power, but in the early part of his reign (A. but this does not appear to be relevant at the time of the writing of Romans. The fact that it might represent or stem from earlier Christian tradition will be taken up further in the Matthew 18:7 and Hebrews , 23. Bruce points out, this is based primarily on "the ground that Tertullian, in his running commentary on Marcion's Pauline edition (Against Marcion v. But there was probably no reason why he should refer to it.") [those in authority] are God's servants who persist in this very thing. The way in which Paul enjoins submission to civil authorities who give themselves to collecting taxes is by giving back to them whatever is owed, whether taxes, dues, respect or honor (13: 6, 7). The reason the Roman Christians pay taxes is because God has appointed the state to receive taxes and they persist in collecting them (6). The way the Roman Christians are to demonstrate submission to civil authorities is by giving back to each authority what is owed, whether taxes, revenue, respect or honor (7). This has led to another, probably more accurate, theory. meaning the entire church as a whole) in the book of Romans, combined with the fact that many different groups appear to be mentioned in Romans 16 (cf. As has already been mentioned, the letter to the Romans was written in A. Therefore, we may assume that political conditions were fairly stable and that the Christian church which was undoubtedly born in the synagogues at Rome enjoyed the status of religio licita as they were still largely seen to be within Judaism's fold. Ksemann suggests another possibility for the background to the passage. His first two specific points include the idea that the passage is tightly constructed without logical connection to the previous section, and as such it not only stands in isolation, but also interrupts the flow of the argument in the context.
The third argument Kallas raises suggests that Romans 13:1-7 "contradicts basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline forms of expression." The first two objections can be responded to simply by seeing the logical connection that exists between both what immediately precedes and that which follows (i.e. Virtually every serious commentary on the book of Romans has had to wrestle with the integrity of the last two chapters of the work, especially chapter 16. Kallas gives two general and three specific reasons for concluding that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation. Paul's letters are occasional documents and the fact that he mentions something only once can more properly be explained as due to the occasion of that particular case. "Render to Caesar." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. He mentions the Lord's supper only once (1 Cor -34). Does this mean that we should on that basis question its authenticity? and ) of the gospel to all people as outlined in the book of Romans clearly indicates its worldwide agenda.