Doherty wonders how we can believe that any first-century Christian could write, as Paul did in Romans 13:3-4:
Rulers hold no terrors to those who do right. . . If you wish not to fear the authorities, then do what is good and you will have their approval, for they are God's agents working for your good." [NIV/NEB]
Surely this is inconsistent with what Christians have historically believed about Jesus' death? Paul here is staunchly defending the very people who put Jesus to death.
"Paul doesn't say he is talking about all rulers who ever existed," says Ted. Well, no, and it isn't likely he intended to be. We needn't think he was so naive as to suppose that there never was an evil ruler at any time in human history. We can reasonably assume he was talking in generalities, not universals.
But still . . . if it was common knowledge among Christians that their religion's founder—who certainly did "do right . . . [and] what is good"—had been executed by evil rulers in history's worst miscarriage of justice, are we to think it would not have occurred to Paul that his assertion might have needed some explicit qualification? Some things do not go without saying, and in this context, something to the effect of "notwithstanding what happened to our savior" would have been one of them.
Ted does not so much present a counterargument as he just stamps his feet and waves his arms while insisting that the crucifixion did happen like the gospels say it happened. He throws a pile of proof texts out to this effect, some not even relevant to Ted's own point and not one of which addresses Doherty's point in citing this particular text.
He follows this with comments on three points that he thinks Paul is making.
"1. Authority comes from God." According to Ted, "This is not contradicted by the gospel record." Well, no, it isn't. But what does that have to do with Doherty's point? If Paul believed that Pilate misued his God-given authority in ordering Jesus' execution, he certainly could have said so. And it is reasonable to think he would have said so, if he had been under the impression that Pilate had had anything to do with Jesus' death.
"2. The nature of authority--to uphold good conduct." Again, Pilate clearly failed, if he ordered Jesus' execution. But in that case, why didn't Paul make a point of saying so?
"3. The way Christians are to respond to authority. Paul tells them to obey." Yes, and what reason does he give? Christians are to obey the law in order that they will have no reason to fear the authorities. Could Paul have believed that, or expected his followers to believe it, while knowing what happened to Jesus of Nazareth? Ted's assertion that there is "no contradiction here" is a plain case of pure denial.
Next
Previous
This page last updated on August 4, 2010.