From: Joel Cannon (jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 10:04:17 EDT
I said some time ago:
>
> > While on the subject of being faithful to Romans 13, it does seem
> > ironic that the instruction to pray for the emporer comes in the
> > context of forbidding revolution (He who rebels against the authority
> > is rebelling against what God has instituted, Rom. 13.2). It seems
> > that it is difficult to translate Paul's instruction to first century
> > Christians into our own. Revolution was evidently a possibility to
> > them. They lived in a world that, perhaps apart from Israel, knew
> > nothing equivalent to the modern nationalism that we have
> >
>
Rich said in part:
> Roman Law was a great protection for those city states liable to
> attack. Why would the early Christians in a city like antioch,
> regularly destroyed, want to revolt against the Romans and the
> stability of Roman law?
Good question. The question could be made more precise by asking why
Paul wrote in Rom. 13.2, "He who rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted and those who do so will
bring judgement on themselves." Presumably, this admonition did not
come "from left field" and Paul perceived such revolt to be a
possibility. It does not necessarily follow that Antiochans would
think the same as Romans, but I suspect that is the case.
Without pretending too much, I offer two items that might help to
explain it or make it more plausible.
1. Christianity was a Jewish movement. National revolt was a normal
part of a significant fraction of Jews' consciousness, particularly
the Shamaite Pharisees like Saul. In N.T. Wright's words, "You
couldn't get a razor blade between religion and politics." "No King
by YHWH" was what Jews said (notice how ironic the chief priests
statement that "we have no king but Caesar", Jn. 19.3 is against
this consciousness). This consciousness meant revolts serious
enough for Roman military reinforcements in Israel about every 20
years. Precisely how this played out in Rome's small church, which
included Jews and Gentiles may be hard to say but the background
would be there.
2. The word "gospel" was a very particular "good news" with strong
political overtones. It was the word used to describe the
announcement of a new emporer. A runner (or runners) would announce
the good news that "---- was king" (and I presume deity). The
choice of the particular word for gospel was thus audacious,
because the implication is that if Jesus is king, Caesar is
not. Phil. 2:10 and 11, for example, was a highly charged political
statement, and unlike Jews in general, who had legal protection for
not saying the emporer was divine (and Lord), Christians did
not. Possibly this consciousness (and the possible accompanying
expectation that God would therefore be on their side and support
them in their revolt against the pagan emporer) is behind the
possibility of revolt implied by Romans 13.2.
What I have written comes primarily from N.T. Wright "What St. Paul
Really Said," and "The New Testament and the People of God" for those
who want to check it out further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 09:51:02 EDT