HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

PAUL, AGAPE, AND EMPIRE

SUBMITTED TO DR. BEN BLACKWELL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES IV CHRI 6320

BY

JOEL BURDEAUX H01153113 APRIL 19, 2012 HOUSTON, TEXAS

Paul, Agape, and Empire by Joel Burdeaux Houston Baptist University Abstract: Paul's commands regarding the Christian's responsibility to the state are a hot commodity in contemporary Pauline scholarship. Since Constantine, the overwhelming majority of scholars section off Romans 13:1-7 as the key text in support of the view that it is the Christian's duty to support the state in all things, including warfare. This text, however, does not stand in isolation from the surrounding texts in Romans, and many contemporary scholars now find 13:1-7 problematic because it does not seem to "fit." If we read this passage in the context of Paul's ethic as presented in Romans 12-13, how does that influence our reading of the passage? In this essay I argue that Paul begins his treatment of the state (the state being part of the category of "others") in 12:14, and this section ends in 13:10, which makes 13:1-7 a part of Paul's overall outward ethic. The problematic passage is then bookended by on the front end (12:9ff) and on the back end (13:8-10), and I believe that the thrust of Paul's argument is found in summary form in 12:18 - "So far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." In the centuries following Constantine, the social success of Christianity led most scholars to section off Romans 13:1-7 as the key New Testament passage regarding the state, and as the proof text for the view that it is the duty of the Christian to support the state in all things, including warfare, to secure its interests, even if those interests are opposed to Gods interests.1 This view was largely unquestioned in the medieval church2, and the Lutheran reformation only served to further this interpretation. It wasn't until the Nazi crisis, in which the so-called German Christians used this text to justify the legitimacy of Hitler's tyranny and their own participation in it, that scholars began to rethink the meaning of this text. That a despot like Hitler could receive the support of a populace that claimed to follow the Biblical Jesus demonstrates the dangerous nature of this interpretation of the Christian's duty toward the state.
1

I am thankful for our Mennonite/Anabaptist friends, as well as for men like Gregory Boyd, for making clear the New Testament teaching that all versions of the kingdom of this world are opposed to Gods kingdom in that they all seek their own. See also, Hauerwas, Stanley, and Samuel Wells, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Religion). Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. This is sometimes referred to as The Divine Right of Kings, and some version of this idea has been taught, affirmed, and supported by the church from the time of Constantine on.

Traditional scholarship does one of two things with this passage. The Positivistic view sees Romans 13:1-7 as described above. God divinely appoints the state, as well as particular governments and officials, and Christian allegiance is required. The weakness of this approach is obvious in a post-Hitler world. There is no room for moral judgment of the existing government, no prophetic voice in the church to speak the truth to power. If Germany finds itself the control of Adolph Hitler, this fact demonstrates that his government is of God [and] they are to be subject to Hitlers authority and consider his cause to be divinely mandated.3 The Normative view is the other option. In this view, what is ordained in Romans 13 is not particular governments or rulers, but the idea of a proper government. If any government meets the basic requirements of restraining evil and rewarding good, then it is a legitimate government. If not, the church is right to disobey, and even rise up against the unjust institution. It is this view that led to the American Revolution, among others. The primary weakness of this approach is twofold. First, what are the exact parameters by which the just or unjust nature of a government are to be judged? And second, the passage says nothing about rebellion, but, in fact, seems to promote non-retaliation.4 Modern scholarship has sought to understand this passage in light of the crisis above. Much ink has been spilled debating Paul's commands in regards to the Christian duty toward the state, and factions have formed, each with their own nuanced view of what Paul is doing in Romans 13:1-7. The debate centers around Paul's politics, particularly, his use of language similar to the language used by the Caesar cult. Is Paul simply using the lordship language he learned as a student of the Septuagint, or is he intentionally incorporating and subverting the language of the Caesar cult? Is Paul merely instructing Christians to submit to Caesar, but
3 4

Yoder, John. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich. Carlisle, UK: Eerdmans Paternoster Press, 1994. (199) ibid (200)

ultimately to Christ, or is he actively resisting the tyrannical structures of the Roman system? Both camps would agree that Paul is emphasizing the lordship of Christ, but some go the extra step of saying that not only is he promoting Christ as lord, he is also actively undermining the authority of Caesar.5 Others in modern scholarship, convinced by the Nazi crisis that the traditional reading is unsustainable, now find 13:1-7 problematic. Armed with the assumption that Paul could not mean for Christians to simply submit to the government of whatever state they find themselves under, they now seek to explain even the existence of this passage. Some, such as T.L. Carter, have suggested, Paul employs the rhetorical device of irony as a covert way of exposing and subverting the oppressive authority structures of the Roman Empire.6 I'm certainly not a Greek scholar, but in my research I could not find textual warrant for such exegesis. Unless we are able to produce proof that Paul intended this passage to be read aloud with a knowing wink from the reader, then I find this argument unconvincing.7 Another popular argument for this (and almost every other problematic Pauline text) is that it is an interpolationscribes added it at a later date. James Kallas says, Not only do these verses stand independent of the context and interrupt it, but, even more, these seven verses go on to contradict basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline forms of expression.8 While this is convenient and wraps up theological issues with a pretty little bow, this is also unconvincing to this writer. Finally, there are some that simply argue that
5

I find James Dunns analysis in The Theology of Paul the Apostle to be the most convincing on this topic. He sees the argument ramping up to a discussion about taxation, and insists that Paul adds this because he does not want the small congregation drawing unnecessary attention to themselves in a hostile situation. Since Rome had a large system of spies, this exhortation would lead to favorable opinion of the fledgling community. Carter, T.L. The Irony of Romans 13, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 46, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 209-228. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561585. (213) I admit that this theory does share a lot in common with Dunn, but the difference in motive is my primary concern. Dunn envisions Paul behaving pastorally, while Carter envisions a more revolutionary Paul. Kallas, James. Romans XIII. 1-7: An Interpolation, New Testament Studies (2009): 365-374. (367)

this passage demonstrates inconsistency in Paul. His theology is presented as changing and locally specific. This is the impetus behind the theories of interpolation, even if some are not willing to go quite so far in their final analysis. I find all of these readings to be wanting. They all, in some way, do violence to the text itself in that they continue the traditionalist project of divorcing the text from its immediate context, its context in the New Testament canon, and its context in the scripture as a whole. But, what if we were to take another approach? What would we discover if we were to take a step back, as it were, and read Romans 13:1-7 in its context. Before we begin, let me list my assumptions. The late historian Howard Zinn once said, "There was never, for me as teacher and writer, an obsession with 'objectivity,' which I considered neither possible nor desirable. I understood early that what is represented as 'history' or as 'news' is inevitably a selection out of an infinite amount of information, and that what is selected depends on what the selector thinks is important."9 I agree with this sentiment, so it is only fair for the reader to know my own bias up front. I am Reformed in soteriology, Baptist in ecclesiology, liturgically catholic, and a pacifist. I assume that the scriptures are univocal in that, while written by various men from different points of views, and over many centuries, they were inspired by the same Holy Spirit and contain the sufficient revelation of God to man. These assumptions/biases create anything but an objective reading of the text, so I do not even pretend that objectivity is my goal. Instead, my goal is to demonstrate how these assumptions force me to read the text in its immediate and canonical context, and how that reading produces something different that both the traditional and contemporary readings. That being said, let us query the text.

Zinn, Howard. The Zinn Reader : Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997. (16)

Paul shifts gears beginning in Romans 12. He has been arguing for the faithfulness of God in overcoming the wages of sin for both the Jews and the Gentiles for eleven chapters, and now he begins to explain how Gods people who are in Christ should live out this gospel. The chapter begins, Romans 12:1-2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of Gods mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God - this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what Gods will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will. Paul begins instructing those who are in Christ in the ways of living according to the gospel of Christ by the power of the spirit. Our lives are to be worship. The implications of that alone are worthy of an essay, but we must leave it for another time. Our primary concern is Paul's second emphasis - that we no longer conform to the pattern(s) of this world, but are transformed by the renewing of our minds.10 Paul is after nothing short of the transformation of our minds in this final section of Romans. This introductory passage creates the stage for Paul's ethical discussion, which begins in earnest in verse 9. Rom. 12:9-13 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lords people who are in need. Practice hospitality.11 Verse 9 serves both as a subheading and as a bookend for our text, the key word being agape (henceforth as ). As a subheading, it lets us know that everything we are about to
10

I find it interesting that, especially when compared to other passages in Romans (see chapter 8) that the Holy Spirit is noticeably absent. But, when we compare to the Pauline corpus as a whole, we cannot help but notice that the transformation and renewal of which Paul speaks is indeed the work of the Spirit, making this ethic that Paul presents a Spirit-ethic. I assume this to be the case in all of my interpretative work on this passage. Rom. 12:9-13 (NIV) paragraphing mine

11

read falls under the category of . For Paul, the Spirit-ethic he presents is centered the idea of working itself out practically in the lives of those who are in Christ. As a bookend, verse 9 pairs with 13:8-10, in which Paul states that whatever "command(s) there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." In this final summary, Paul reminds the reader that his ethic, while re-understood through Christ and the Spirit, is still the same eternal law of God, which is fulfilled by . These bookends form a boundary marker around this section of Paul's ethic. A simplified outline of the passage might look as follows: 12:9 - The imperative to demonstrate . 12:10-13 - Demonstrating toward other believers. 12:14-21 - Demonstrating toward those who oppress the saints. 13:1-7 - Demonstrating toward the state. 13:8-10 The law is fulfilled by .

This outline demonstrates what I am arguing for quite well. Some will, no doubt, consider this a bold move that I make without warrant, but when we read this section (12:913:10) as a unit, I believe that it makes perfect sense. The translators responsible for our chapter and verse system do us a favor by emphasizing that Paul begins a new thought in Romans 12, but we were done no favors when they broke up Paul's thought by placing a big "13" before Paul's dealings with the state. We do well to remember that this system did not originate with Paul but was added later. This may be elementary, but we must still keep it in mind. When read in this way, and when we consider the historical context into which Paul wrote this letter (he would be killed in Rome in just a few years), my structure of this passage becomes viable. In fact, this is the only way to read this passage that does justice to the bookends argued for above. Paul is insisting that is the out-working of a renewed mind, of someone who has been

transformed, and it is that motivates the categories outlined above. It is love that seeks to take care of other believers. It is love that blesses those who persecute you, and repays evil with good, and feeds an enemy. And it is love that does not retaliate against an oppressive state, but submits to its judgments as unto God. , even toward those with the authority to torture and kill you. Where would Paul get an idea like this? It seems like such a strange and impractical thing for him to say. Is he actually asking believers to even demonstrate toward a Caesar that demanded worship and allegiance on pain of death? Yes, he is. And he finds warrant in the Risen Lord he met on the road to Damascus. And, lest we think that Christ's example is too lofty an ethical model for us to follow, he writes the following to the Philippians: Phil. 2:5-8 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross!12 Paul's argument here is not dissimilar to his argument in Romans 12:9-13:10, it is just more explicit in its imperative to imitate Christ. Christ submitted to an oppressive state as unto God. If we had the time, we could find explicit examples of Christ demonstrating in every way that Paul commands those who are in Christ to demonstrate . Christ demonstrated in all things. Christ fulfilled the law.13 This means that when we read Romans 12:9-13:10 we are to read each command in light of the modeled by Christ, while seeking to be transformed into his image by the work of the spirit in the renewal of our minds. "Therefore any interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 which is not also an expression of suffering and serving love
12 13

Phil. 2:5-8 Rom. 8:3-4

must be an misunderstanding of the text in its context. There are no grounds of literary analysis, textual variation, or style to support the claim that we have here to do with a separate chunk of teaching which constitutes foreign matter in the flow of the text."14 As stated in my list of assumptions, I view scripture as univocal. From beginning to end, the scriptures tell one story. This interpretation finds strong support in that tradition, because Paul in Romans 13 is no longer in conflict with Jesus in Matthew 5-7, as many suppose. Even if my Reformed tradition's unconscious emphasis on Paul over Jesus rears its head, this reading places me squarely within the Jesus tradition. "Both [texts] instruct Christians to be nonresistant in their relationships... both call on followers of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms which this world calls 'vengeance' or 'justice'... both call Christians to respect and be subject to the historical process in which the sword continues to be wielded and to bring about a kind of order under fire, but not to perceive in the wielding of the sword their own reconciling ministry."15 So what? How does this reading effect us? What does it mean for the church? The implications for this new rendering are anything but small. In fact, due to the practical nature of the passage at hand, my argument can only truly work itself it in the life of the church. If the stated goal of this passage is renewal of our minds, then they must be renewed. Mental ascent to a type of reading is not my goal, or is it Paul's. Rather, nonconformity to the patterns of the world, and Spirit-empowered transformation and renewal are the goals. For this to happen, we must move, first, beyond the traditional readings, while avoiding the pitfalls common to contemporary scholarship. Second, we must read the text in its context, and within the boundaries of . Third, we must evaluate the ways our old way of reading led us into
14 15

Yoder, John. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich. Carlisle, UK: Eerdmans Paternoster Press, 1994. (196) ibid (210)

actions that contradict the meaning of the text, and, lastly, in the spirit of the Reformation's cry of semper reformanda! we must resubmit ourselves to the text, and let the text live through us. Hopefully, I have demonstrated how to move beyond the traditional readings, as well as how to avoid contemporary pitfalls, by insisting that we read Romans 13:1-7 in its context. Now, when we encounter the commands of 12:9-13:10, we read them with as the framework and guide. Romans 12:9-13:10 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lords people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for Gods wrath, for it is written: It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are Gods servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are Gods servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves

10

others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.16 When read within the framework of , the thrust of Pauls argument then becomes a practical description of . Each command should be read with the premisesince is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you byunderstood as the basis. Let us consider some examples:

Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by blessing those who persecute you. (12:14) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by associating with people of low position. (12:16) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by not taking revenge, but leaving room for the wrath of God. (12:19) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by giving food and drink to your enemies. (12:20) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by not being overcome with evil, but by overcoming evil with good. (12:21)

And, we must continue into chapter 13 using the same method

Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by being subject to the governing authorities (13:1) as unto the Lord. (13:2) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by seeing government as a gift for your good. (13:4) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by paying taxes and debts faithfully. (13:6-7) Since is the fulfilling of Gods law, you should let live through you by loving your neighbor as yourself. (13:10)

16

Rom. 12:9-13:10 paragraphing mine

11

A univocal view of scripture, which is what most of those in my tradition(s) affirm and hold to, wont allow for scripture to contradict itself, Yet, other readings of Romans 13:1-7 place it in direct conflict with the verses immediately surrounding it. This demonstration shows that it is possible to read chapter 13 as not only non-contradictory, but also logically flowing from Romans 12. The final verses of chapter 12 lead naturally into a treatment of cooperation with tax-gathering authorities, who were renowned in the ancient world for their avarice and injustice, in short, for their evil.17 Now we must ask the most uncomfortable question of ourselves and our traditionsin what ways has our old reading of this text produced actions in conflict with the text and its emphasis. I only name three ways, but the list is quite long when we consider the historical nature of the old interpretations.18 1. An over-emphasis on how Christians should vote instead of on how Christians should live. All of the Take our country back for God rhetoric assumes a faulty interpretation of this text. Righteousness via ballot is a concept that is foreign to the Biblical witness. 2. Our judgments on societal sins. Paul insists that is to be the guiding characteristic of our behavior, yet too much of our public life is defined by an us vs. them mentality. 3. Our participation in and support of war. The traditional interpretation allows for Christians in all countries, not just Nazi Germany, to support and even take part in horrific wars of conquest and revenge. I suggest the obviousyou cannot kill in the spirit of . You cannot simultaneously shoot at an enemy and give them food and drink. You cannot simultaneously bless those who persecute you and
17

Esler, Philip. Conflict and Identity in Romans : The Social Setting of Paul's Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. (331) In this section, I lean heavily on Gregory Boyds remarkable book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, (Boyd, Gregory A. The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest For Political Power Is Destroying the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.) and Richard Hays Ethics text (Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: a Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. HarperOne, 1996.)

18

12

bomb them. You must choose one or the other. And when we consider the fact that in every war that our country has been involved in, Christians were guilty of killing other Christians in the name of the state. The American Revolution, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan Christians shot, bombed, stabbed, burned, maimed, and otherwise destroyed other Christians. This is kingdom confusion.

I could go on, but I challenge you to examine your own life and tradition. And I challenge you to move beyond analysis, and to begin living out Pauls Spirit-ethic of an driven life. Or, as Paul summarizes in 12:18, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Every commend in this passage can be summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself.19

19

Rom. 13:9

13

Bibliography Boyd, Gregory A. The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest For Political Power Is Destroying the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. Carter, T.L. The Irony of Romans 13, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 46, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 209-228. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561585. Dunn, James. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 2006. Esler, Philip. Conflict and Identity in Romans : The Social Setting of Paul's Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Hauerwas, Stanley, and Samuel Wells, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Religion). Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: a Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. HarperOne, 1996. Kallas, James. Romans XIII. 1-7: An Interpolation, New Testament Studies (2009): 365-374. Pinter, Dean L. Divine and Imperial Power: A Comparative Analysis of Paul and Josephus, PhD diss., Durham University, 2009. Yoder, John. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich. Carlisle, UK: Eerdmans Paternoster Press, 1994. Zinn, Howard. The Zinn Reader : Writings on Disobedience and Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997.