330 Joel White eschatological urgency (Dan 8,17.19; 11,35) (76). With regard to the second metaphor in v. 12a, few doubt that Paul has a very specific “day” in mind: the “day of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1,8) which in Paul’s thinking denoted the demarcation point between the end of the present age and the final establishment of God’s reign in Christ (77). Paul is thus traversing familiar early Christian terrain in referring to the nearness of the Parousia of Christ (Phil 4,5; Jas 5,8; 1 Pet 4,7). c) Rom 16,20a There has been some discussion as to whether Paul’s hortatory remark in Rom 16,20a “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (oJ de; qeo;" th'" eijrhvnh" suntrivyei to;n satana'n uJpo; tou;" povda" uJmw'n ejn tavcei) refers to the final eschatological triumph over Satan or simply to the defeat of the false teachers in Rome, against whom Paul’s words in the section immediately preceding this verse are directed. The similarity of this statement to ones in various roughly contemporary Jewish texts that predict the downfall of the demonic realm (Jub. 23,29; 1 En. 10,4; 13,1-2; 2 En. 7,1-3; T. Mos. 10,1; T. Levi 18,12; T. Sim. 6,6; 1QM XVII,5; XVIII,1) would seem to indicate that the former view is more likely correct, but perhaps Schreiner is right when he argues that the two views need not be considered mutually exclusive (78). Indeed, there is ample evidence across a broad spectrum of early Jewish and Christian literature that the emergence of false teachers was regarded as one of the sure signs that the end of the present age was near (Jub. 23,14-21; 4 Esra 5,1; 1 En. 91,3-8; 93,8-10; 1 Tim 4,1-2; 2 Tim 3,1; 2 Pet 3,3; 1 John 2,18). If that is true, then Rom (76) This does not, in and of itself, indicate subversive intent on Paul’s part. Danielic concepts seem to be behind Paul’s positive view of the state in Rom 13,1- 7 (see above), especially his statement in Rom 13,1b that there is no governing authority that does not ultimately originate with God and that the existing authorities have been appointed by God (cf. Dan 2,21; 4,17.25.32; 5,2). So also Dunn, Romans 9-16, 770-771. These, in turn, are rooted in OT and early Jewish convictions regarding the divine origin of human government — cf. U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK VI/3, Röm 12-16; Zürich 1982) 33. It should not be forgotten, however, that Paul’s view of the state cannot be articulated on the basis of Rom 13,1-7 alone. Other passages such as 1 Cor 2,8; 6,1-8 and, indeed, the texts under consideration here make it clear that, while Paul affirmed the state as part of the God-given order for the present age, it is far from being inherently good and trustworthy, and should thus to be assessed critically. Cf. O. CULLMANN, Der Staat im Neuen Testament (Tübingen 1956) 36-50. (77) Cf. MOO, Romans, 821, n. 20. (78) Cf. T. SCHREINER, Romans (ECNT; Grand Rapids, MI 1998) 804-805.