Understanding the First-Century Church’s View of Civil Government
Unless you live in complete isolation, you have likely heard
at least two fundamental arguments around how the Christian Church ought to
approach the subject of American politics. At one end of the spectrum, most
evangelicals argue that being politically active is our God-given right and
that we actually have a duty, art least in democratic societies, to use the
political system to do as much social good as we can. Those who fail to honor
this duty, these people assert, are in essence, sinning against God or, at the
very least, not helping our cause. At the other end of the spectrum, a minority
of evangelicals argue just the opposite. They contend we should not have
anything whatever to do with politics and this includes voting. Unless we can
vote for a man who is close enough to biblical Christianity in his views, we
should not vote at all. Finally, there is a mediating position, which is where
I fall. Unfortunately, even a smaller minority of evangelicals subscribe to this
position. The goal of this blog is to spend considerable time conducting an
exegetical analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in order to understand the longest passage
of Scripture that addresses the relationship of believers in the Christian
community with their respective civil governments.
"The first question in understanding any text is what it meant in its original context as determined through philology, cultural analysis, questions of literary form, style, intent, and transmission." [Rodney Petersen in Continuity and Discontinuity]
"The first question in understanding any text is what it meant in its original context as determined through philology, cultural analysis, questions of literary form, style, intent, and transmission." [Rodney Petersen in Continuity and Discontinuity]
In order to understand Paul’s instructions and commands to
the Romans Christians in this era rightly, it will be helpful for us to
understand the political background in which his audience lived. The Roman
political system was under the control of an emperor during NT times. This control
emerged from a republic, as a result of the civil war between Julius Caesar and
Gnaeus Pompey. Under the republic, the senate had been the main body of power.
However, membership in the Roman senate was much different than it is under our
system, well, sort of. A member of the senate had to have property valued at
somewhere between 40,000 to 48,000 denarius. A denarius, in case you did not
know, was equal to one day’s earnings in this culture. How much is this is
today’s dollars? Suppose the average American earns $50,000 a year and works
six days a week. That would be equal to somewhere between 6.4 million and 7.7
million dollars in property value. You are correct if you concluded that one
had to be extremely wealthy in order to sit on the senate. The people had no
say in the political system, and this is especially true for the poor.
There were three upper-classes in Greco-Roman culture. These
aristocratic classes were established by law and were called honestiores (“possessors of honor”).
They were quite wealthy. They despised manual labor and upheld the leisurely
lifestyle as lending itself to virtue. They had the preferential seats at
productions and banquets, were served better food, and were even treated
differently in the courts. There was no real middle class in Greco-Roman culture.
The gap between the highest of the poor class and the lowest of the upper class
quite large.
The city of Rome was a large city of about 1 million people.
The ethnic of Rome was extremely diverse, having drawn a variety of ethnic
groups since about the third-century B.C. The Jewish population represented
only about 4% at this time, or 40,000 in number. The Jewish population was due
in part to Pompey bringing captive Jews to Rome as slaves in 62 B.C. Religion
and politics were bound closely together in Rome. Emperor worship was an
expression of political loyalty. The priests of the state religion served as
guides to the senate. They discerned the divine will through signs, set
calendars, and established religious laws. In fact, by the end of the republic,
these priests were organized as a priestly college. Its members were trained to
discern the divine will from the entrails of sacrificial animals.[1]
Any study of church-state relations not only must begin with
the state religion of Rome but also must include the reception Rome gave to the
foreign religions that antedated Christianity, since foreign religions could
not be introduced in Rome without official approval from the senate and Romans
viewed religion as a concern of the state. Since the late republic, Rome looked
at all foreign religions with much suspicion. “At the same time, it was ready
to attempt the introduction of a foreign religion when it perceived that cults
offered a solution to an unmet need in Rome.”[2]
Thomas Schreiner outlines Romans as follows:
I. The
gospel as the revelation of God’s righteousness in 1:1-1:17II. Deals with God’s righteousness in His wrath toward sinners in 1:18-3:20
III. Concerns the saving righteousness of God in 3:21-4:25
IV. Treats hope as a result of righteousness by faith 5:1-8:39
V. Addresses God’s righteousness to Israel and the Gentiles in 9:1-11:36
VI. God righteousness in everyday life 12:1-15:13
VII. The extension of God’s righteousness through the Pauline mission in 15:14-16:23
VIII. Final summary of the gospel of God’s righteousness in 16:25-27
It does not take long to recognize that the first eleven
chapters of Romans were primarily doctrinal in nature. When we arrive at
chapter twelve, the concern moves to praxis, as is so often the case with
Pauline literature. In 12:1-2, Paul makes an impassioned plea for the Roman Christians
to present their bodies as a living sacrifice to God. He urges these Christians
not to be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of their
minds. It is no mistake that Paul begins with mind as the place of
life-transformation. As the thought world goes, so goes the will and the
emotions. “Sacrifice was one of the most important aspects of Roman religion,
both public and private. One invariable rule was that male animals were offered
to male deities and female animals to female deities. It was considered a good
sign if animals went willingly to their slaughter.”[3]
How much better is it that the Roman Christian sacrifice their very bodies than
animals. This would have resonated well with the Roman Christians who were no
doubt used to the emphasis on sacrifices having grown up with it in the Roman
religious system.
Immediately after issuing this plea for entire
transformation, Paul addresses the selfless execution of service within the
framework of the spiritual gifts. The idea is to benefit the group. The group
thought of Greco-Roman culture is quite distant from the hyper-individualism
that makes up modern American and western thought. Bruce Malina writes, “Instead
of individualism, what we find in the first-century Mediterranean world is what
might be called collectivism. The dyadic person is essentially a group-embedded
and group-oriented person.”[4]
The body of Christ, the Church, and the multitude of “one-anothers” throughout
the NT writings should understood through this grid.
After his brief discussion on the gifts of the Spirit
operating within the body of Christ, Paul launches into a litany of commands
that seem entirely concerned with group values. He commands unfeigned love,
hating evil and clinging to good, brotherly devotion, selflessness in showing
honor, being diligent, passionate, serving the Lord, rejoicing, devotion to
prayer, benevolence, and hospitality. He continues with this list of virtues
and values up to 13:1 when he says that every person is to be in subjection to
the governing authorities.
This is the context for the longest text of Scripture in the
NT that addresses the Christian’s relationship with the governing, or civil
authorities. It is written to Roman Christians who live in a system that is
anything but fair by any stretch of the imagination. The political system in
Rome makes the American system look exceptionally virtuous by comparison.
The first issue is straightforward. To whom is Paul issuing
commandments and instructions? Romans 1:7 says Paul is addressing “all who are
beloved of God in Rome, called as saints. He is not addressing unbelievers in
Rome. He wrote the letter to those who are beloved of God, called as saints.
Paul is not addressing civil authorities or secular governments. He is writing
the Church of Jesus Christ that is located in the city of ancient Rome. Paul’s
first command is that every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.
The Greek word hupotasso appears 38
times in the NT. It is used quite widely, being employed by Luke, Paul, the
author of Hebrews, James, and Peter. Every writer uses the word in the same
way. It means to submit to the orders or directives of someone. The meaning is
unambiguous and without controversy. Every person is to submit to civil
authorities. Paul tells us why this is the case. With his employment of the
epexegetical gar, he explains that we
must submit to civil authorities because they are established by God. He goes
on to say that anyone who resists the authority also resists God. Christians
are not to create an environment where they are perceived to be subversive to
the governing authorities. Christianity is not a political threat to the
secular system.
Paul’s theology informs him that God has a role for
government the same as He has for the institutional Church. These two roles are
distinct. He sets the submissive disposition of the Church over against the
ruling authority of civil authorities. Paul says the person who resists civil
authorities also resists God in v 2. Of course, there is even a more narrow
context in Paul’s meaning here. The idea here is one of civil obedience,
law-keeping if you will. The context of this passage has to do with Christian
citizens being good, law-abiding citizens and not being arrested for
law-breaking. This is not to say that Christians will not be arrested for their
religious practices. In the Roman system that was very possible.
Paul goes on to say that it is necessary to be in subjection
to the civil authorities because of conscience sake. The civil law serves the
purpose of God to maintain law and order in society. Moreover, Christians are
instructed not only to see the civil authorities as God’s servant, and not only
to be law-abiding citizens, but also good tax-paying citizens. Some civil authorities are due taxes, others
custom, others fear, and still others, honor. Christians, for conscience sake
are to render to each of these roles their just due because they are the
servants of God for that end.
Paul is not addressing civil authorities in this verse. He
is addressing the behavior of Roman Christians. His expectations of these
Christians are clear. He expects them to submit to the governing authorities. Paul
is also not outlining a list of imperatives for the civil authorities in Rome.
He is not even addressing Roman authorities. He is addressing the Church. He is
speaking to the elect of God. Romans 1:7 tells us this very clearly. Paul is
deeply concerned with values of the Christian group. Nowhere in the text does
Paul issue divine imperatives for the Roman Christians to order or even
influence the Roman system. If such a thought every crossed Paul’s mind, he
didn’t mention it in his writings. Given the situation of his day, it is
unlikely that Paul would have thought along these lines. His concern was for
the young Christian groups that were being called by God out of this dark world
into the kingdom of God’s light. This concern was more than enough work for
Paul and the rest of the apostles and leaders of the young struggling Christian
communities.
[1] Stanley E. Porter and Craig A.
Evans, Dictionary of New Testament
Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic
ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
[2] Stanley E. Porter and Craig A.
Evans, Dictionary of New Testament
Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic
ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
[3] Stanley E. Porter and Craig A.
Evans, Dictionary of New Testament
Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic
ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
[4] Bruce J. Malina, The New
Testament World (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 62.
No comments:
Post a Comment