In my last post on this subject, I proposed that the term “gospel” had inherently political connotations to the first century readers of the Gospel narratives. Now I would like to examine the possibility that Paul similarly had a view of the gospel that profoundly affected his notions of Caesar and the Roman Empire.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, Paul writes this to the church in Thessalonica:
Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
From the context of this passage in the rest of the letter, it seems that the church was curious about the end times. What I am particularly interested in, however, is the phrase “peace and security” in this passage. This phrase seems to be one of the hailing cries of the Roman Empire, especially after the reign of Caesar Augustus. This is what Everett Ferguson says about Augustus’ promotion of peace:
There was a great emphasis on peace: his rule ushered in the pax romana. After the wars of the preceding period a genuine sense of gratitude was expressed toward Augustus for the restoration of peace. He promoted this virtue of his reign, given monumental expression in the ara pacis (altar of peace) in Rome…security and safety made possible travel, trade, and renewed economic development and prosperity.
It seems that, at least in Paul’s mind, the peace and security of the proud Roman Empire was ill-spoken. Paul, for whom Jesus is Lord, does not place his security in the hands of an emperor, no matter how powerful. After taking into consideration the account in Acts 17 of the political turmoil caused by Paul in Thessalonica, I think it is plausible to say that Paul’s message that Jesus is Lord was taken as contrary to the Roman state.
However, we all know the text in Romans that speaks about submission to those in authority. The biblical witness makes clear that God intends order in the world, and having government is part of the meting out of social order. I think that the point of contention that Paul would have with government comes precisely where those in authority cross their purposes with God. For the early Christians, the primary controversy with government came when the emperors claimed too much authority for themselves. Caesar cannot be Lord if Christ is Lord, and unfortunately, this assertion of the early Christians cost them their lives.
So what does this mean for us? Well, here’s my take on it. We as Christians should affirm the necessity of government, but always maintain a critical stance towards it. Our position is not to endorse candidates, parties, or political systems, but rather to prophetically call the existing governments to fulfill their God-given directive to create and maintain order and justice in the world. I think that means in a democratic system of government that we should vote for whom we believe most consistent with God’s order, but that when these politicians are put in place they will still need to be critiqued by God’s standards. Christians should thus not expect a particular system or party to solve the world’s problems. I think, on the contrary, Christians should be the ones who are the leaders of justice and order. So for instance, when Lyndon Johnson told Martin Luther King, Jr., that he was unable to motivate Washington to create a voting rights act, King led a march from Selma to Montgomery, which led only five months later to a voting rights act.
May we, in such spirit, lead our government towards greater and greater manifestations of justice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment