Jun 25
The strange case of the taxing liturgist
It is always risky and possibly arrogant to disagree with almost everyone, but I have become increasingly convinced that our Bible translations are generally wrong about Romans 13:6, here quoted from the NRSV.
For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.
(διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε· λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσκαρτεροῦντες.)
First I don’t think it’s helpful to translate διάκονός (diakonos) in 13:4 and λειτουργοὶ (leitourgoi) here both as “servant(s)” when the words are significantly different. Second, this translation implies, as some have suggested1 that there is some kind of non-payment of taxes going on. On the contrary: “Paul takes it for granted that the Christians of Rome have been paying their taxes”2. Much more significantly, I’m not at all sure that λειτουργοὶ can actually refer to someone who takes money from you.
Paul uses the word twice elsewhere. In Romans 15:16, he uses it to describe himself as a “minister (λειτουργὸν ) of Christ Jesus” and ties this to the “offering of the Gentiles” which in context is far less likely to be any reference to Paul’s collection, but the Gentiles themselves as Paul’s ministerial offering to God. In Philippians 2:25 he uses it to describe Epaphroditus as “your messenger and minister (λειτουργὸν ) to my need”. In this case it would seem that Epaphroditus is offering material comfort to Paul. In both these cases Paul’s use of the word fits the more general sense. As Cranfield notes: “it means characteristically a public service of work in the ordinary secular sense (specially a public service carried out by a private citizen at his own expense).”3 In both religious and public service (to use a more modern distinction) liturgists – λειτουργοὶ – are those who make an offering, not those who collect it. A secular liturgy is a public benefaction. Those who make conspicuous benefactions (and that meant virtually any wealthy benefactor) could expect a form of public recognition as the authorities give praise to those who do good. (Romans 13:3).
Our translations, however, persist in using this word to describe the authorities, and by implication the tax-collectors, sometimes to almost exaggerated effect.
for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. (NET)
the authorities are all serving God as his agents, even while they are busily occupied with that particular task. (NJB)
the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing (NIV)
Given that I am about propose an idea that may seem anachronistic, I should note first that these translations are also somewhat anachronistic in their view of tax-revenue as supporting the government’s public service of keeping law and order. But also let’s be clear that there is no explicit reference to the authorities in this verse. The translations read it back in. What happens if we take it out altogether, and divide the sentence differently:
Because this is the real reason you pay your taxes: those who keep on doing this very thing (i.e. paying taxes) are offering service to God.
The second clause then keeps close to the normal range of meaning of “liturgy makers” by referring to those who make the offering, and shell out the cash, rather than those who collect it. By implication (and this is the seeming anachronism) taxes become the benefaction of the poor, who cannot afford the conspicuous benefactions of the wealthy, and so can only receive their praise from God. No state will erect a tablet in their honour.
We then have an argument that is all of a piece in a slightly different way from that which has normally been suggested. Romans 13 flows effortlessly from the preceding injunctions: “Be patient in tribulation (12:12) …. Bless your persecutors (12:14) … Do not repay evil for evil (12:17) … As far as possible for you, live in peace with everyone (12:18) … Do not avenge yourselves (12:19)
Paul makes four arguments in Romans 13 to support these injunctions for a non-violent inter-communal life.
- Those who seek vengeance for themselves go against the appointed role of the state to bear the sword. If you do not live at peace, the state will enforce peace against you (13:1-2, 4).
- Those who have wealth should use it to do works of public good (13:3).
- Those wealthy and prominent people may either act out of fear (of the state’s punishment) or conscience (being rightly thought well of by others) (13:5).
- Those who are poor also make benefactions through taxes (13:6) and by calling them God’s benefactors Paul stresses the way they serve the public good, and God’s purposes.
Joining in some sort of communal violence is not only wrong, because it fails to give the state its due role under God, but it’s a waste of your own money, which has gone to support communal peace, which should be ordered appropriately. I need hardly say that this, of course, is also arguing for some very specific situation at Rome as part of the reason the letter takes the shape and content it does.
Notes- e.g. Jeremy Moiser ‘Rethinking Romans 12 –15’ in NTS (1990) vol 36 pp 571 – 582, John Ziesler Paul’s Letter to the Romans London: SCM, 1989 ad loc [↩]
- J A Fitzmyer, Romans London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [↩]
- A critical and exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans (Vol 2) Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979 ad loc [↩]
June 27th, 2007 at 5:35 am
No responses still! I looked at Nanos briefly - he has some special issues with the sword, arguing both that the chapter is a natural flow from the rest of the argument and that the sword is of the synagogue authorities not of the civil authority. He outlines synagogue authorities as being of four types in a chiastic arangement with the four duties: 1 authorities, 2 rulers, 3 diakonos (ministers), 4 leitourgoi (servants) - 4 tax, 3 custom, 2 fear, 1 honour. So he would consider that the ‘liturgist’ collects taxes. I think it is important for the translation to reflect the circular structure if indeed it is there and I think I like Nanos’ argument. He makes a great deal more of telos than is implied by the word custom, linking it to the perfection of the sacrifice in 12:1. His is the most historically appealing book on Romans that I have read. His thesis that the letter is to Jew and Gentile is sound in my eclectically formed opinion.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
An interesting argument, but surely if this were correct Paul would have written hoi eis auto touto proskarterountes with the article, to make this a definite subject “those who keep on doing this very thing”. As there is no the article, I think we have to assume that the subject is someone already specified, and so the translation should be more like “they are offering service to God as they keep on doing this very thing”. But who are the “they”? They cannot be “you (plural)” as the verb is third person plural. By normal rules the subject must be the most recent third person plural referent, which appears to be “rulers” in verse 3. Also we have to consider who are the “all” in verse 7, very probably “all of them” (RSV). So I conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that the traditional translation is more or less correct. I would go for something like “rulers are offering service to God as they keep on doing this very thing (i.e. collecting taxes)”.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I fear you may be right, Peter. However, I still doubt whether leitourgoi naturally bears the sense of people collecting money. There’s something odd either about the gramar (if I’m right) or the semantics (if you;re right).