Empire in the New Testament

Empire in the New Testament

McMaster Divinity College Press McMaster New Testament Studies Series

Patterns

of Discipleship

The Road from

in the New Testament

Damascus:

The Impact

on His Life, Thought, Life in the Pace of Death:

Into Gods Presence: Reading Contours Hearing

Translating

Prayer

(1997) Message

(1998) (2000)

in the New Testament

the Gospels

Today

Mission:

Text, Translation,

Old Testament

and New Testament

(2005)

in the New Testament

in the Old and New Testaments

the New Testament:

(2001)

(2004)

in the New Testament

the Old Testament

Christian

Conversion

The Resurrection

of Jesus'Parables

of Christology

The Messiah

of Pauls

and Ministry

of the New Testament The Challenge

(1996)

Developments

(2006) (2007)

Theology Foundations (2010)

(2009)

Empire in the New Testament

edited

by

STANLEY E . PORTER and

CYNTHIA LONG WESTFALL

^PICKWICK

Publications

· Eugene,

Oregon

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W TESTAMENT McMaster Divinity College Press New Testament Study Series 1 0 Copyright © 2 0 1 1 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be repro­ duced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1 9 9 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 , Eugene, OR 97401.

McMaster Divinity College Press 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Pickwick Publications An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W. 8th Av.e, Suite 3

L8S 4K1

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com ISBN 1 3 : 9 7 8 - 1 - 6 0 8 9 9 - 5 9 9 - 8

Cataloging-in-Publication

data:

Empire in the New Testament / edited by Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall xii + 306 p.; 23 cm. — Includes bibliographical references and indexes. McMaster Divinity College Press New Testament Study Series 1 0 ISBN 1 3 : 978-1-60899-599-8

1. Church history — Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 2. Religion and politics — Rome — History. 3. David, King of Israel. 4. Bible. O.T. Isaiah — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 5. Bible. N.T. Matthew — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 6. Bible. N.T. Luke and Acts — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 7. Bible. N.T. John — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 8. Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 9. Fathers of the Church. I. Porter, Stanley Ε., 1 9 5 6 - . II. Westfall, Cynthia Long. III. Title. IV. Series. BS2545 E5 2 0 1 1

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Contents

Preface

I vii

Abbreviations

I ix

Contributors

I xiii

Introduction: Empire, the New Testament, and B e y o n d —Stanley

1

E. Porter

and Cynthia

Long

11

The Old Testament Context o f David s Costly Flirtation with E m p i r e - B u i l d i n g — D o u g l a s K. Stuart

2

Westfall

117

W a l k i n g in t h e Light o f Yahweh: Z i o n a n d t h e E m p i r e s in t h e B o o k o f I s a i a h — M a r k /. Boda

I 54

3

M a t t h e w a n d E m p i r e — W a r r e n Carter

4

K i n g Jesus a n d H i s A m b a s s a d o r s : E m p i r e a n d L u k e - A c t s —Craig

5

A. Evans

I 90

1120

"I Have C o n q u e r e d t h e W o r l d " : T h e D e a t h o f Jesus a n d t h e E n d o f E m p i r e i n t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n — T o m Thatcher

6

Paul C o n f r o n t s C a e s a r w i t h t h e G o o d N e w s —Stanley

7

1140

E. Porter

1164

" T h i s w a s N o t an O r d i n a r y Death": E m p i r e a n d A t o n e m e n t in t h e M i n o r Pauline E p i s t l e s — M a t t h e w F o r r e s t L o w e / 1 9 7

ν

vi

Contents 8

R u n n i n g t h e G a m u t : T h e Varied R e s p o n s e s t o E m p i r e in Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y — C y n t h i a Long

9

Westfall

The Church Fathers and the R o m a n Empire —Gordon

L. Heath

Modern

Authors

Ancient

Sources

I 259

Index Index

I 283 I 289

1230

Preface

T

H E 2007 Η . Η . B i n g h a m C o l l o q u i u m o n the N e w T e s t a m e n t at M c M a s t e r Divinity College in H a m i l t o n , O n t a r i o , C a n a d a was e n ­

titled " E m p i r e in t h e N e w Testament." T h e C o l l o q u i u m was t h e thirteenth in a c o n t i n u i n g series. At t h e C o l l o q u i u m , scholars from all over N o r t h A m e r i c a t o o k t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to e x c h a n g e i m p o r t a n t perspectives o n this c u r r e n t a n d controversial N e w T e s t a m e n t t h e m e , perspectives that d e m o n s t r a t e d a variety o f approaches in discovering t h e relationships a m o n g t h e N e w Testament, early Christianity, a n d t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . A n interested public attended, heard t h e papers, a n d responded with insight­ ful questions a n d c o m m e n t s . T h e r e was s o m e spirited interest b e t w e e n t h e participants as well. W e h o p e that this v o l u m e will b e o f interest to general readers a n d serve as a useful t e x t b o o k o r supplemental source for t h e study o f the c o n t e x t of, c o n t e n t of, and interpretive approaches t o t h e N e w Testament. W e also trust that it m a k e s a cogent c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the o n g o i n g discussion o f this i m p o r t a n t topic. T h e B i n g h a m C o l l o q u i u m is n a m e d after Dr. H e r b e r t H e n r y B i n g ­ h a m , w h o was a n o t e d Baptist leader in O n t a r i o , C a n a d a . His leadership abilities were r e c o g n i z e d b y Baptists across C a n a d a and a r o u n d t h e world. His qualities included his genuine friendship, dedicated leadership, unswerving C h r i s t i a n faith, tireless devotion to duty, insightful service as a p r e a c h e r a n d pastor, a n d visionary direction for congregation a n d d e n o m i n a t i o n alike. T h e s e qualities endeared h i m b o t h t o his o w n c h u r c h m e m b e r s and t o believers in o t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n s . T h e C o l l o q u i u m has b e e n e n d o w e d b y his daughter as an act o f appreciation for h e r father. W e are pleased to b e able t o c o n t i n u e this tradition. O t h e r C o l l o q u i a published in this series include t h e following: Patterns Damascus: Ministry New

of Discipleship The Impact

in the New of Pauls

Testament

Conversion

( 1 9 9 7 ) , Life in the Face of Death:

Testament

( 1 9 9 8 ) , The Challenge

vii

( 1 9 9 6 ) , The Road on His Life,

The Resurrection

of Jesus

Parables

Thought Message

( 2 0 0 0 ) , Into

from and of the God's

viii

Preface Presence:

Prayer

( 2 0 0 4 ) , Contours Old Testament New Testaments Theology

in the New Testament of Christology

in the New Testament ( 2 0 0 7 ) , Translating

( 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d Christian

New Testament

Developments

( 2 0 0 1 ) , Reading

in the New Testament

the Gospels ( 2 0 0 5 ) , Hearing

( 2 0 0 6 ) , The Messiah the New Testament:

Mission:

Old Testament

Today the

in the Old and Text,

Translation,

Foundations

and

(2010).

Finally, we would like to t h a n k a n u m b e r o f people for their particu­ lar c o n t r i b u t i o n s . First, we would like to t h a n k the individual contributors for a c c e p t i n g the assignments, for all their efforts in the preparation and presentation o f papers that m a k e a significant contribution o f benefit to biblical scholars, students o f t h e Bible, and believers c o n c e r n e d about t h e historic c o n t e x t o f the N e w Testament, h e r m e n e u t i c s , and the C h r i s t i a n s relationship to governing authorities, all o f w h o m should b e engaged with this t i m e l y topic. W e would also like to t h a n k the staff and student helpers and volunteers at M c M a s t e r Divinity College, all o f w h o m were integral in creating a pleasant e n v i r o n m e n t and a supportive atmosphere. T h a n k s particularly go to M a t t h e w L o w e for suggesting t h e topic for the collo­ q u i u m , and to B e t h Stovell w h o worked with the manuscript. B o t h o f us were c o - c h a i r s o f the c o n f e r e n c e a n d edited this v o l u m e with the hopes that it will further the i m p o r t a n t discussion on the relationship between the N e w T e s t a m e n t and the R o m a n E m p i r e . Stanley E . Porter C y n t h i a L o n g Westfall M c M a s t e r Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Abbreviations

AB

A n c h o r Bible C o m m e n t a r y

ABD

David N o e l F r e e d m a n , editor. The Anchor

Bible

Dictionary ACCS

A n c i e n t Christian C o m m e n t a r y Series

AGJU

A r b e i t e n zur G e s c h i c h t e des antiken J u d e n t u m s u n d des U r c h r i s t e n t u m s

AnBib

A n a l e c t a biblica

ANEP

James B . Pritchard, editor. The Ancient

Near East

Pictures

Princeton:

Relating

to the Old Testament.

in

P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1 9 5 4 . ANET

J a m e s B . Pritchard, editor. Ancient Relating

to the Old Testament.

Near Eastern

Texts

3rd ed. P r i n c e t o n :

P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1 9 6 9 . Ath.

Mitt.

Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts, A t h e n i s c h e Abteilung.

BAR

Biblical

Archaeology

Review

BASOR

Bulletin

BECNT

B a k e r Exegetical C o m m e n t a r y o n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t

of the American

Schools

of Oriental

Research

BETL

B i b l i o t h e c a e p h e m e r i d u m t h e o l o g i c a r u m lovaniensium

Bib

Biblica

Bull

Corn

BZAW

Hell. Bulletin

de correspondence

hellenique

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ CIA

Catholic Corpus

Biblical

Quarterly

Inscriptionum

Atticarum,

as/GI CIG

Corpus

Inscriptionum

Graecarum

CIL

Corpus

Inscriptionum

Latinarum

ix

after 1 9 0 3 k n o w n

χ

Abbreviations COS

W i l l i a m W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, editors. The Context

of

Scripture.

ESV

English Standard Version

ET

English Translation

fl.

flourished

FN

Filologia

IBM

Inscriptions o f t h e British M u s e u m

ICC

International Critical C o m m e n t a r y

IG

Inscriptiones

neotestamentaria

Graecae

consilio

et auctoritate.

Academiae

litterarum reglae b o r u s s i c a e editae. Editio M i n o r . Berlin, 1 9 2 4 IGR

Inscriptiones

Graecae

ad res Romanas

Int

Interpretation

JBL

Journal

of Biblical

JGRChJ

Journal

of Greco-Roman

pertinentes

1,3,4.

Paris: L e r o u x , 1 9 0 6 - 1 9 2 7 . Literature Christianity

JNES

Journal

of Near Eastern

JRA

Journal

of Roman

and

Judaism

Studies

Archaeology

JRH

Journal

JQR JSNT

Jewish

Quarterly

Journal

for the Study of the New

JSNTSup

Journal

for the Study of the New Testament

JSOT

Journal

for the Study of the Old

JSOTSup

Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament

of Religious

History Review Testament Supplement

Series Testament Supplement

Series LCC

Library o f Christian Classics

LCL

L o e b Classical Library

LNTS

L i b r a r y o f N e w Testament Studies

LSJ

H. G. Liddell, R o b e r t Scott, and H. Stuart Jones. Greek-

MAMA

Monumenta

MNTS

M c M a s t e r N e w Testament Studies

NAC

New American Commentary

NASB

N e w A m e r i c a n Standard Version

NewDocs

G. R. Horsley and S. R. Llewelyn, editors. New

English

Documents NICNT

Lexicon Asiae Minoris

Illustrating

antique

Early

1-8

Christianity

N e w International C o m m e n t a r y on the N e w Testament

Abbreviations NICOT

N e w International C o m m e n t a r y o n the O l d T e s t a m e n t

NIGTC

N e w International G r e e k T e s t a m e n t C o m m e n t a r y

NovT

Novum

NovTSup

Supplements to N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m

Testamentum

NRSV

N e w Revised Standard Version

NTL

N e w T e s t a m e n t Library

NTS

New Testament

OBT

Overtures to Biblical T h e o l o g y

Studies

OGIS

W. Dittenberger. Orientis

OTG

O l d T e s t a m e n t Guides

OTL

O l d T e s t a m e n t Library

RSV

Revised Standard Version

RevExp

Review

SB

Sammelbuch

and

Graeci

inscriptiones

selectae

Expositor griechischer

Urkunden

aus

Aegypten.

Edited b y R Preisigke et al. 1915— SBLDS

S o c i e t y o f Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS

S o c i e t y o f Biblical Literature M o n o g r a p h Series

SBLSP

S o c i e t y o f Biblical Literature S e m i n a r Papers

SBLSS

S o c i e t y o f Biblical Literature S e m e i a Studies

SBLSymS

S o c i e t y o f Biblical Literature S y m p o s i u m Series

SCO

Studi classici

SEG

Supplementum

SIG

W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum

SH

Scripture and H e r m e n e u t i c s Series

SJT

Scottish

SNTSMS

S o c i e t y for N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies M o n o g r a p h Series

SWJT

Southwestern

TDGR

Translated D o c u m e n t s o f G r e e c e and R o m e

TDNT

G e r h a r d Kittel a n d G e r h a r d Friedrich, editors.

e

Journal

Theological

orientali Epigraphicum

of Journal

Graecum graecarum

Theology of

Dictionary

Theology

of the New Testament.

Trans.

Geoffrey W. B r o m i l e y 10 vols. G r a n d Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 7 7 TLNT

Theological

Lexicon

of the New Testament.

3 vols.

Peabody, M A : H e n d r i c k s o n , 1 9 9 4 TNIV

T o d a y s N e w International Version

TUGAL

Texte u n d U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur G e s c h i c h t e der altchristlichen Literatur

TynBul

Tyndale

Bulletin

xi

xii

Abbreviations UBSGNT

U n i t e d Bible Societies' Greek New

VT

Vetus

Testament

WBC

W o r d Biblical C o m m e n t a r y

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m N e u e n

Testamentum

Testament ZAW

Zeitschrift

fur die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft

Contributors

M A R K J. B O D A , Professor o f O l d Testament, M c M a s t e r Divinity College, Hamilton, O N , Canada W A R R E N C A R T E R , Professor o f N e w Testament, Brite Divinity S c h o o l at TCU, Fort Worth, T X , U S A C R A I G A . E V A N S , Payzant Distinguished Professor o f N e w Testament, A c a d i a D i v i n i t y College, Wolfville, N S , C a n a d a G O R D O N L . H E A T H , Associate Professor o f Christian History, M c M a s t e r D i v i n i t y College, H a m i l t o n , O N , C a n a d a M A T T H E W FORREST L O W E , P h D candidate, M c M a s t e r Divinity College, Hamilton, O N , Canada S T A N L E Y E . PORTER, President, D e a n , a n d Professor o f N e w Testament, M c M a s t e r D i v i n i t y College, H a m i l t o n , O N , C a n a d a D O U G L A S K. STUART, Professor o f O l d Testament, G o r d o n - C o n w e l l Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, M A , U S A T O M T H A T C H E R , Professor o f N e w Testament, C i n c i n n a t i C h r i s t i a n U n i ­ versity, C i n c i n n a t i , O H , U S A C Y N T H I A L O N G W E S T F A L L , Assistant Professor o f N e w Testament, M c M a s t e r D i v i n i t y College, H a m i l t o n , O N , C a n a d a

xiii

INTRODUCTION

Empire, the New Testament, and Beyond

S T A N L E Y E . PORTER A N D C Y N T H I A LONG W E S T F A L L

T

HE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG T H E N e w Testament, early Christianity, a n d t h e R o m a n E m p i r e have b e e n a topic o f growing interest in

N e w T e s t a m e n t studies. S o m e discussion o f this is unfortunately a fad fostered b y t h o s e w h o are constantly seeking after s o m e t h i n g n e w o r an approach that will distinguish their w o r k from that o f others. However, there are substantive reasons for e x a m i n a t i o n o f this topic that have led us t o publish t h e papers presented in this v o l u m e . T h e development o f social-scientific m e t h o d o l o g i e s a n d the discussion o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e layers o f c o n t e x t in the m e a n i n g o f a text have offered tools a n d ap­ p r o a c h e s that raise legitimate n e w questions regarding t h e v o i c e o f t h o s e subordinated t o others a n d the e m b e d d e d n e s s o f their discourse within specific c o n t e x t s . O t h e r sets o f questions have b e e n raised due to d r a m a t i c r e c e n t historic t r e n d s a n d events such as the H o l o c a u s t a n d the breakup o f W e s t e r n empires. Consequently, there has b e e n i n c r e a s e d attention to t h e relationships a m o n g t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , the N e w T e s t a m e n t , a n d early Christianity—as a subject in its o w n right and as o n e that m a y s p e a k t o o u r present situation. T h e r e has also b e e n a related focus o n t h e relationship b e t w e e n Judaism a n d the succession o f empires that pres­ sured a n d c o n t r o l l e d it, arriving finally at o n e o f the m o s t c o n t i n u o u s l y a n d widely discussed a n c i e n t regimes, the R o m a n E m p i r e , w h i c h often serves as an e m b l e m for m o d e r n c o n c e p t i o n s o f empire. In addition, p o s t c o l o n i a l interpretation has drawn parallels b e t w e e n t h e e x p e r i e n c e s o f m o d e r n c o l o n i a l i s m a n d t h o s e o f the diverse subjugated individuals a n d people groups in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , a n d liberation theologies o f ι

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

2

various types have challenged the use o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t for support­ ing repressive regimes o r empires. T h e B i n g h a m C o l l o q u i u m o f 2 0 0 7 brought scholars from across N o r t h A m e r i c a to present substantive papers o n e m p i r e in the N e w T e s t a m e n t in order to answer the poignant question, " H o w does a C h r i s t i a n render u n t o C a e s a r what is C a e s a r s , and u n t o G o d what is G o d s ? " T h e scholars e x a m i n e d various understandings o f empire in the ancient world as the c o n t e x t into w h i c h Christianity was b o r n a n d to w h i c h it responded. Papers were given on the O l d T e s t a m e n t c o n c e p t o f empire as it relates t o the N e w Testament. T h e n the various authors o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t were e x a m i n e d , with a view to their response t o t h e n o t i o n o f empire, b o t h h u m a n a n d divine.

1

T h e first paper, by D o u g l a s K . Stuart o n David s empire, looks at the mentality o f empire in t h e a n c i e n t N e a r East and the O l d T e s t a m e n t s re­ sistance to this mentality. Stuart t h e n e x a m i n e s D a v i d s plans for an e m ­ pire in the light o f 2 S a m u e l 2 4 a n d 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 , w h i c h r e c o r d K i n g D a v i d s attempt to establish an a r m y large e n o u g h to c o n q u e r foreign nations a n d establish an empire. T h e mentality o f e m p i r e in the a n c i e n t N e a r East assumes that certain nations have the right t o establish e m p i r e at t h e e x p e n s e o f o t h e r nations. T h e imperialistic establishment a n d c o n ­ tinuing c o n t r o l a n d subjugation o f foreign lands is a m a r k o f greatness o f the ruler, the " h o m e " nation, a n d their national god. This mentality therefore justifies the financial bleeding o f conquered/subjugated lands t h r o u g h tributes, taxes, and tolls; the use o f propaganda t e c h n i q u e s to influence the subjugated people to accept their fate; religious imperial­ ism to acknowledge the greatness and superiority o f the e m p i r e s god; t h e right to rearrange populations via deportations t o m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l a n d establish peace; and e x p e c t a t i o n that c o n q u e r e d kings would b r i n g their n a t i o n s practices a n d values into c o n f o r m i t y with the values o f the controlling e m p i r e .

2

T h e O l d Testament displays a general resistance to the N e a r East m e n t a l i t y o f empire b y portraying all h u m a n empires in a negative light. However, it is not wrong to speak o f the d o m a i n s o f Saul, David, o r S o l o m o n as empires, i f o n e m e a n s a reign over a "continuous" empire 1. We wish to thank the individual contributors who provided abstracts of their papers, which we have drawn on in the summaries that follow. 2. This is a summary of Stuarts thirteen ingredients of the mentality of empire in the ancient Near East.

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

f o r m e d o f a grouping o f c o n t i g u o u s territories. F u r t h e r m o r e , e m p i r e s are c r e a t e d b y warfare, a n d there was a c o n c e p t o f H o l y War, codified in D e u t 2 0 : 1 - 2 0 a n d exemplified a n d s u p p l e m e n t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t . T h e nature o f t h e H o l y W a r is that it was a religious u n d e r ­ t a k i n g w h e r e Yahweh did t h e real fighting, t h e goal was total a n n i h i l a t i o n o f an evil culture, a n d it was c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y decisive rapid victory. T h e c o n c e p t i n c l u d e d qualifications, such as that there c o u l d b e n o standing army, n o pay for soldiers, n o p e r s o n a l plunder, a n d n o land c o n q u e r e d or defended o t h e r t h a n t h e P r o m i s e d L a n d . T h e r e were specific limita­ t i o n s as well, including that war c o u l d o n l y b e l a u n c h e d at Y a h w e h s call, t h e divine call c o u l d o n l y c o m e t h r o u g h a prophet, a n d it would b e u n ­ d e r t a k e n with various f o r m s o f religious self-denial such as fasting a n d a b s t i n e n c e f r o m sex. T h o s e w h o violated t h e rules were e n e m i e s o f G o d a n d Israel, t h o u g h s o m e e x c e p t i o n s a n d m u t a t i o n s were possible.

3

Stuart m a i n t a i n s that D a v i d u n d e r s t o o d war a n d what it c o u l d a c ­ c o m p l i s h in t e r m s o f b o t h H o l y W a r a n d t h e N e a r E a s t e r n m e n t a l i t y o f c o n q u e s t . T h e c e n s u s that D a v i d t o o k in 2 S a m u e l 2 4 / / 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 appears t o have taken place after h e h a d subdued t h e traditional b o u n d ­ aries o f Israel. It was an attempt t o build a standing a r m y t o e x t e n d a n d a u g m e n t t h e Israelite "core" t h r o u g h c o n q u e s t , p r o b a b l y t o gain addi­ t i o n a l revenue t o finance his t e m p l e c o n s t r u c t i o n c a m p a i g n . S o it s e e m s that D a v i d violated t h e rules o f H o l y War, departing f r o m t h e traditional Israelite/Old T e s t a m e n t hostility towards empire, a n d e m b r a c i n g t h e p a ­ gan N e a r E a s t e r n m e n t a l i t y o f empire, w h i c h p r o d u c e d disaster b u t was t u r n e d a r o u n d b y G o d for a spiritual end. Stuart s focus o n D a v i d s e m p i r e in t h e c o n t e x t s o f t h e a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t a n d t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t t h e o l o g y o f H o l y W a r is directly related t o t h e D a v i d i c royal tradition, w h i c h is an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t o f reference for N e w T e s t a m e n t motifs such as S e c o n d T e m p l e m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n s , t h e p e r s o n o f Jesus, a n d t h e nature o f t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d . However, S t u a r t s paper addresses D a v i d s failings m o r e t h a n his function as a m o d e l in any o f t h e s e areas. I n so doing, Stuart provides s o m e founda­ t i o n a l e l e m e n t s for u n d e r s t a n d i n g e m p i r e in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . First, his helpful s u m m a r y o f t h e a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n c o n c e p t o f e m p i r e is descriptive o f c o n c e p t s underlying t h e R o m a n E m p i r e o n e v e r y point. S e c o n d , an O l d T e s t a m e n t t h e o l o g y o f H o l y W a r that stands in c o n t r a s t t o t h e pagan N e a r E a s t e r n m e n t a l i t y c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y i n f o r m t h e 3. This is a summary of Stuart s twelve propositions that summarize Holy War.

3

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

4

e n c o u n t e r s with a n d c r i t i c i s m s o f the R o m a n E m p i r e b y S e c o n d T e m p l e J u d a i s m a n d early C h r i s t i a n i t y Third, he provides an excellent e x a m p l e from the O l d T e s t a m e n t where t h e c o n t e x t o f the c o n c e p t o f e m p i r e in the a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t is a k e y t o interpreting two parallel passages that, apart from this c o n t e x t , provide a classic puzzle. T h e s e c o n d paper is b y M a r k J. B o d a o n the t r e a t m e n t o f e m p i r e within t h e b o o k o f Isaiah. T h e b o o k o f Isaiah is o n e o f the few texts in the O l d T e s t a m e n t designed to shape the response o f the people o f G o d t h r o u g h o u t the t i m e w h e n a succession o f ancient N e a r E a s t e r n empires shaped its destiny: the Assyrian (Isaiah 7 - 3 9 ) , B a b y l o n i a n (Isaiah 4 0 5 5 ) , a n d Persian (Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 ) periods. T h e prophetic b o o k o p e n s with a presentation o f the prophet s vision o f Z i o n , a H e b r e w tradition closely linked with Israels o w n imperial tradition. It is Z i o n that is t h e m o s t c o m m o n designation for the people o f G o d t h r o u g h o u t t h e b o o k , first as J e r u s a l e m seeks t o live an existence independent o f s u r r o u n d i n g e m ­ pires (chs. 7 - 3 9 ) , t h e n as an exilic c o m m u n i t y a m o n g t h e empires (chs. 4 0 - 5 5 ) , a n d finally as a restored c o m m u n i t y living as a c o l o n y a m o n g the empires (chs. 5 6 - 6 6 ) . T h e Z i o n tradition represents t h e imperial tradition that is the ideal t h r e a t e n e d in Isaiahs day. T h e H o l y O n e o f Israel rules t h e world from Z i o n , but the city does n o t reflect the c h a r a c t e r o f its e m p e r o r — a c c o r d ­ ing to b o t h the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d pagan contexts, the city's inhabitants were obligated to bring themselves into c o n f o r m i t y with the emperor's values. The Assyrian threat in Isaiah 6 - 3 9 is c o n n e c t e d to a c o n c e r n over the nations and G o d s clear message, from b o t h historical and c o s m i c points o f view, that he will defeat Assyria a n d the o t h e r great i m p e ­ rial powers o f Isaiahs time. Isaiahs message to Judah's kings ( A h a z a n d H e z e k i a h ) was that they must n o t b e intimidated b y empire, n o r b e t e m p t e d to trust o t h e r anti-imperial political forces, so foreign e m p i r e is viewed v e r y skeptically. T h e call to trust Yahweh as having t h e authority and p o w e r t o rule the nations d e m a n d e d that the two kings discharge their claims to kingship in Judah and entrust themselves and their king­ d o m into the h a n d s o f Yahweh to ensure that Judah would survive and thrive. B o t h kings ultimately failed the test, which resulted in the ruin o f Judah b y Assyria a n d B a b y l o n . T h e a u d i e n c e in Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 is the c o m m u n i t y in the B a b y l o n i a n period, w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e d the discipline resulting from the failure o f

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

kings A h a z a n d H e z e k i a h in chs. 6 - 3 9 . T h e trust o f t h e two kings in rising M e s o p o t a m i a n forces led t o t h e exile o f Judah t o t h e heart o f t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n e m p i r e . T h i s s e c t i o n includes t h r e e strategies for dealing with t h e c h a l l e n g e t o faith o f t h e atrocities a n d pain that t h e c o m m u ­ n i t y e x p e r i e n c e s : a t h e o l o g i c a l appeal o f r e d e m p t i o n a n d creation b y t h e 4

H o l y O n e o f Israel t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e c t i o n ; t h e revelation o f t h e a r m o f t h e L o r d " in c h s . 4 1 - 4 8 that will b r i n g salvation a n d deliverance t o Israel initially t h r o u g h Cyrus; a n d t h e S e r v a n t o f the L o r d , o r Jacob-Israel, as t h e exilic c o m m u n i t y w h o b r i n g s j u s t i c e a n d functions as a "light" for t h e G e n t i l e s a n d "a c o v e n a n t for t h e people," but ultimately ends in suffering a n d death that will b r i n g a t o n e m e n t for sin a n d salvation f r o m exile. I n chs. 4 9 - 5 5 , t h e c r y o f daughter Z i o n at t h e outset ( 4 9 : 1 4 ) has b e e n a n ­ swered t h r o u g h t h e revelation o f t h e a r m o f t h e L o r d expressed t h r o u g h t h e S e r v a n t Jacob-Israel. Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 c o n t i n u e s t o evaluate

empire

negatively. E v e n t h o u g h t h e Persian C y r u s is raised up for Y a h w e h s pur­ p o s e s , t h e r e is a r e l u c t a n c e t o collapse t h e h o p e o f Israel into t h e politics o f t h e Persian E m p i r e — t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e e m p i r e o f Yahweh a n d t h e loss o f p o w e r o f t h e p a g a n e m p i r e really o c c u r s ironically t h r o u g h t h e suffering o f t h e S e r v a n t at t h e h a n d s o f t h e nations. Isaiah 5 5 - 6 6 targets a restoration c o m m u n i t y d u r i n g t h e Persian p e r i o d that did n o t live up t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s created in chs. 4 0 - 5 5 , but prophesies h o p e for t h e future with a universal vision in w h i c h t h e n a t i o n s enter i n t o a relationship with Yahweh a n d worship h i m . O n l y t h e people w h o r e s p o n d t o I s a i a h s m e s s a g e will e x p e r i e n c e full restoration o f a temple, a city, a n d a c o m m u n i t y , a n d t h e y will see t h e ultimate pur­ p o s e o f Yahweh fulfilled in regard t o t h e Gentiles. T h e Persian E m p i r e is virtually i g n o r e d as irrelevant in this s e c t i o n — Z i o n is G o d s i m p e r i a l capital o n earth. Ultimately, t h e people are called t o believe G o d s i m p e ­ rial vision o r presentation o f reality rather t h a n that o f t h e nations. T h e y are n o t t o trust political alliances o r m i l i t a r y preparation, a n d t h e y are n o t t o a c c e p t t h e e m p i r e s view o f t h e i r status as v i c t i m s . B u t n e i t h e r are t h e y t o trust t h e m i g h t o f Israel o r t h e Davidic line. Prerogatives are shifted f r o m t h e D a v i d i c line t o others (such as C y r u s ) , t h e c o m m u n i t y , a n d t o Yahweh as king. J e r u s a l e m r e m a i n s t h e seat o f t h e divine e m p e r o r a n d t h e political a n d religious c e n t e r o f t h e world, but this l o c a t i o n ap­ pears t o b e d i s t a n c e d f r o m a physical J e r u s a l e m . B o d a s focus o n Isaiah provides an appropriate

complementary

view o f e m p i r e in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , b e c a u s e Isaiah offers s o m e o f t h e

5

6

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

earliest theological reflection o n J u d a h s identity in a world d o m i n a t e d by n e a r eastern empires. Judah e x p e r i e n c e d increasing a n d e n d u r i n g i m ­ perial d o m i n a t i o n in three phases, in each o f w h i c h there was a distinct response to empire. B o d a also m a k e s a c o n n e c t i o n in his c o n c l u s i o n b e t w e e n Isaiahs t r e a t m e n t o f e m p i r e a n d Jesus' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f t h e realization o f Isaiahs vision o f Z i o n a n d the k i n g d o m o f G o d in Luke 4 : 1 4 - 1 9 . Therefore, B o d a d e m o n s t r a t e s a very significant e x a m p l e o f the use o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t in the N e w Testament, showing h o w b o t h an Old Testament text that c o n c e r n s e m p i r e and Israels c o n c e p t s o f empire a n d interaction with empire provide an identifiable c o n t e x t for the inter­ pretation o f a central passage in t h e N e w Testament. T h e third paper is b y W a r r e n C a r t e r o n M a t t h e w s negotiation o f the R o m a n E m p i r e . His thesis is that t h e R o m a n E m p i r e c o m p r i s e s the foreground o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t rather than the b a c k g r o u n d . His c o m ­ m e n t s are divided into two sections, the first dealing with m e t h o d , and the s e c o n d with content, specifically M a t t h e w s plot, Christology, e s c h a tology, and ecclesiology. After identifying five m e t h o d s o r approaches to interpretation that have interfered with the detection o f the b o o k s interaction with the R o m a n E m p i r e , he outlines a multi-layered o r inter­ >>

disciplinary approach that he labels "cultural intertextuality His fivefold approach is c o m p r i s e d o f historical studies, classical a n d archaeological studies, s o c i a l - s c i e n c e m o d e l s o f empire, cultural anthropology, a n d postcolonial studies, to which he adds s o m e forms o f narrative c r i t i c i s m . C a r t e r s detection o f the negotiation o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e b e g i n s with the historical analysis o f likely daily c o n d i t i o n s within the empire e x p e r i e n c e d by the early C h r i s t i a n s w h o were the recipients o f M a t t h e w s Gospel. C a r t e r suggests A n t i o c h - o n - t h e - O r o n t e s , the provincial capital o f Syria, as a possible milieu, and uncovers s o m e o f the realities o f the R o m a n imperial presence in that c o n t e x t through classical sources a n d archaeological discoveries, while also recognizing the partial nature o f the material o r artifactual remains. H e therefore draws u p o n socialscience m o d e l s o f agrarian-aristocratic empires to provide a holistic framework o f the imperial structure, w h i c h allows the various pieces to b e j o i n e d into a bigger picture. C a r t e r also draws u p o n a s o c i a l - s c i e n c e m o d e l o f empire, n o t i n g eight arenas in which the R o m a n E m p i r e exer­ cised political, e c o n o m i c , social, military, and religious p o w e r and m a i n ­ tained its hierarchical world. A n o t h e r s o c i a l - s c i e n c e m o d e l involves the d y n a m i c s o f power in c o n t e x t s where there are massive differentials o f

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

7

power, s u c h as peasant e c o n o m i e s w h e r e resistance is usually disguised in self-protective a n d calculated ways a n d o p e n revolt is relatively i n ­ frequent. Finally, t h e discipline o f p o s t - c o l o n i a l studies is particularly utilized t o u n m a s k t h e d y n a m i c s o f imperial power. C a r t e r argues that Matthew's G o s p e l is a w o r k o f i m p e r i a l negotia­ t i o n t h r o u g h focusing o n its plot, Christology, eschatology, a n d disciples h i p / e c c l e s i o l o g y T h e plot tells t h e story o f Jesus crucified b y t h e e m p i r e b e c a u s e h e challenges its power. H e is a crucified provincial w h o m R o m e c a n n o t k e e p dead—the s t o r y denies Rome's claims t o power, e x p o s e s it as b r i n g i n g death, a n d celebrates G o d s life-giving p o w e r t h r o u g h Jesus' words, w o r k s , a n d resurrection. This story is m e a n t t o shape a n d f o r m t h e identity a n d alternative societal existence o f early C h r i s t i a n s so that t h e y live accordingly. T h e C h r i s t o l o g y o f Matthew, revealed in t h e pre­ sentation o f Jesus as t h e agent o f G o d w h o is c h o s e n to manifest t h e i r sovereignty, will, a n d wellbeing a m o n g h u m a n beings, contests i m p e r i a l c l a i m s a n d interacts with t h e central claims o f R o m a n theology. T h e e s c h a t o l o g y o f Matthew, revealed in t h e resurrection, portrays Rome's limited power. T h e ecclesiology, revealed in t h e manifestation o f God's r u l e / e m p i r e , creates a counter-cultural c o m m u n i t y c o m m i t t e d t o G o d a n d Jesus with an alternative worldview a n d set o f societal practices. I n s u m m a r y , a c c o r d i n g t o Carter, t h e G o s p e l negotiates Rome's p o w e r t h r o u g h a self-protective yet contestive approach that offers a (largely) alternative, t h o u g h in part also imitative, worldview a n d social e x p e r i ­ e n c e lived out in t h e practices o f a c o m m u n i t y o f Jesus' followers. Carter's w o r k is representative o f p o s t - c o l o n i a l interpretation

as

well as o f t h e application o f m o d e l s from social s c i e n c e , as h e employs his multidisciplinary a p p r o a c h in c o n n e c t i o n with r e c o g n i t i o n o f his o w n e x p e r i e n c e o f growing up in a c o l o n y o f the f o r m e r British E m p i r e . As such, h e offers an invaluable c o n t r i b u t i o n to the discussion with t h e application o f his interpretive m e t h o d s , a n d presents n e w perspectives for c o n s i d e r a t i o n in h e r m e n e u t i c s , t h e G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w a n d its syn­ o p t i c relations, a n d biblical theology. The fourth paper b y C r a i g A . Evans is o n political i m a g e r y in L u k e A c t s . I n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t G o s p e l s , Jesus is a c k n o w l e d g e d as k i n g b y b o t h his followers a n d his e n e m i e s alike. In Luke, Jesus is c o m p a r e d to t h e " b e n e f a c t o r s " o f his t i m e , thus criticizing a n d at t h e s a m e t i m e adopt­ ing an i m p o r t a n t political epithet. This interesting political d i m e n s i o n is furthered in t h e b o o k o f A c t s , w h e r e Paul t h e a m b a s s a d o r is presented

8

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

as an a m b a s s a d o r o f K i n g Jesus. Evans s essay is c o m p o s e d o f three parts: Jesus as k i n g in t h e G o s p e l s a n d early Christian literature; Jesus as b e n e ­ factor; a n d the apostles as Jesus' ambassadors. Evans shows that Jesus was perceived as a king a n d rival t o C a e s a r h i m s e l f in all four G o s p e l s and in the first two o r t h r e e generations o f early Christianity. In t h e Gospels, h e is shown as k i n g p r i m a r i l y in his interrogation and execution, t h o u g h there are p r o c l a m a t i o n s o f Jesus' kingship earlier in M a t t h e w and J o h n . Evans also highlights affirmations o f Jesus' kingship in Paul, Revelation, a n d the Martyrdom

of Poly carp, and

suggests that the nature o f t h e charges and accusations b r o u g h t against Jesus and t h e early Christians indicate that Jesus was Caesar's rival. Evans further suggests that Luke presents a distinctive interpreta­ t i o n o f Jesus' kingly status as benefactor. H e shows that, in Luke 2 2 : 2 5 , Luke's variation from M a r k 10:42 and M a t t 2 0 : 2 5 adds t h e w o r d " b e n e ­ factors": " T h e kings o f the Gentiles exercise lordship over t h e m ; and t h o s e in authority over t h e m are called benefactors.'" After surveying literature and inscriptions from late antiquity, as well as Jewish literature, Evans concludes that Luke's readers would readily interpret t h e reference to "benefactors" in t h e c o n t e x t o f the rulers and the mighty. However, Evans suggests that Jesus did n o t forbid his disciples to b e benefactors and conveyors o f benefaction, but to avoid the examples o f t h e "kings o f the Gentiles" in h o w t h e y exercise authority. In A c t s , the m i n i s t r y o f Jesus is also described in t e r m s o f b e n e f a c ­ tion. K i n g Jesus has a redemptive m i n i s t r y o f seeking and saving, for w h i c h h e sends his apostles w h o are true emissaries o f a k i n g a n d func­ tion as ambassadors. First, Evans discusses h o w Paul refers t o h i m s e l f as an a m b a s s a d o r in his letters (2 C o r 5:20; E p h 6 : 1 8 - 2 0 ; P h l m 8 - 1 0 ) , t h e n he discusses the language and i m a g e r y o f "ambassador" and "envoy" in ancient Israel and its literature, and finally h e shows h o w the language o f the a m b a s s a d o r functions in Paul's s e c o n d telling o f his D a m a s c u s road conversion to K i n g Agrippa II in Acts 2 6 : 1 1 - 1 8 . T h e result is t h e procla­ m a t i o n o f Jesus as king, w h o has sent his apostles and a m b a s s a d o r s with the m i s s i o n to p r o c l a i m g o o d news and reconcile t h e world to G o d . Evans's paper contributes to the discussion on e m p i r e in t e r m s o f b o t h m e t h o d o l o g y and exploration o f the context o f b e n e f a c t i o n and ambassadorship in ancient inscriptions and literature. H e utilizes redac­ t i o n c r i t i c i s m in c o m p a r i n g Luke with M a t t h e w and M a r k to suggest that Luke m a y have had m o r e o f an interest in presenting Jesus as a b e n e f a c -

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

t o r t h a n t h e o t h e r two Evangelists. His survey o f literature in regards t o b e n e f a c t i o n is impressive a n d m a y also c o n t r i b u t e t o a wider u n d e r ­ standing o f t h e p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationship in t h e culture o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . Finally, E v a n s m a k e s a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e distinctive t h e o l o g y o f L u k e - A c t s as it relates t o empire. The fifth paper, b y T o m Thatcher, focuses o n h o w t h e story o f Jesus' death in t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n is a response t o empire. T h a t c h e r m a i n ­ tains that t h e c r o s s reflects t h e m y t h i c a l substructure o f R o m a n rule, a n d J o h n s r e s p o n s e is a c o m p l e t e reversal o f everything that crucifixion represents, s o that Jesus is s h o w n t o b e greater t h a n C a e s a r in every way. T h a t c h e r first highlights t h e challenges that t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n presents t o a study o n e m p i r e in t h e N e w Testament, t h e n h e outlines a reading strategy that e x p o s e s t h e social values o f R o m a n crucifixion a n d J o h n s reversal o f t h o s e values. At first g l a n c e , J o h n d o e s n o t appear to b e interested in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . H e s e e m s m o r e interested in t h e o l o g y t h a n p o l i t i c s — h e says n o t h i n g a b o u t c e r t a i n topics that are included in t h e Synoptics that m i g h t reveal a p o s t u r e towards R o m e , such as attitudes t o t a x - c o l l e c t o r s a n d soldiers, paying taxes, t h e pejorative nature o f G e n t i l e authority, t h e portrayal o f Jesus as a "king," o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e t h e m e o f t h e k i n g ­ d o m o f G o d . T h e s e o m i s s i o n s c o m b i n e with overt t h e o l o g i c a l interests in C h r i s t o l o g y that are often treated as spiritual a n d esoteric. However, an i n s p e c t i o n o f k e y events f r o m Jesus c a r e e r in t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n re­ veals that J o h n s c o n c e p t o f t h e " S o n o f G o d " was deeply influenced b y t h e cultural realities o f R o m a n rule. T h a t c h e r suggests that J o h n s crucifixion story c a n b e read at t w o levels. J o h n b o t h develops C h r i s t o l o g y a n d radically reverses t h e p r e m ­ ises o f R o m e ' s p o w e r — t h e interplay o f C h r i s t o l o g y with t h e p r e m i s e s o f Rome's p o w e r defines t h e christological value, s h o w i n g that C h r i s t is superior t o C a e s a r in e v e r y way. D r a w i n g o n Yael Zerubavel's w o r k o n t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y Z i o n i s t s a n d M i c h a e l Foucault's m o d e l o f "countermemory," T h a t c h e r suggests that crucifixion was o n e o f Rome's p u b ­ lic rituals that was u n d e r g i r d e d b y " c o m m e m o r a t i v e narratives" that rationalized a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h e i m p e r i a l status quo. C r u c i f i x i o n was n o t o n l y an act o f e x t r e m e v i o l e n c e but also a d r a m a t i c r e e n a c t m e n t o f R o m e ' s c o n q u e s t o f t h e world with p o i n t e d propaganda objectives— t h e m e s s a g e was that R o m e was capable o f suppressing every threat t o its sovereignty. J o h n admits t h e public events o f t h e cross but denies

9

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

10

their n o r m a l c o m m e m o r a t i v e value b y offering a c o u n t e r - m e m o r y o f Jesus death. H e arranges the pieces o f t h e historical puzzle t o create n e w a n d often subversive images o f what o c c u r r e d . H e c o m p l e t e l y subverts Rome's values b y reinterpreting t h e public events o f C a l v a r y t o d e m o n ­ strate Jesus' absolute c o n t r o l over everyone involved in t h e situation. W h i l e J o h n achieves this effect through several literary devices, T h a t c h e r highlights his appropriation o f the t h e m e "fulfilled p r o p h e c y " as a m e a n s o f denying t h e R o m a n c l a i m s s u r r o u n d i n g crucifixion. O n the surface, every s c e n e in t h e F o u r t h Gospel's crucifixion a c c o u n t s e e m s t o follow the logic o f R o m a n d o m i n a t i o n : J o h n paints a plausible portrait o f Rome's physical and psychological p o w e r exercised in the crucifixion through six distinct scenes. However, J o h n adds a s e c o n d layer o f m e a n ­ ing to the events b y treating Scripture as a causal force that c o m p e l s the soldiers to do what t h e y do. In addition t o t h e t h e m e o f prophetic fulfillment, J o h n presents Jesus' last words as p r o c l a i m i n g victory, rather than saying "what he ought to say" in such a situation. In the p r o c e s s , the reader is shown that Caesar's agents ultimately serve Christ's purposes, a n d that the cross was actually t h e m o m e n t w h e n Jesus c o n q u e r e d the world. T h a t c h e r utilizes an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y m o d e l that

professedly

t o u c h e s o n interests r a n g i n g f r o m h i s t o r i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l , a n t h r o p o ­ logical, political, a n d literary t o areas o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h e o r y a n d folklore. However, his m e t h o d c a n p r o b a b l y b e b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a narrative a p p r o a c h , w h e r e s t o r y is p r i m a r y in m a k i n g m e a n i n g . This allows J o h n t o tell t h e s t o r y in t e r m s o f his o w n s t o r y world— but T h a t c h e r also interfaces it with h i s t o r i c a l data t o d e m o n s t r a t e that J o h n is telling a s t o r y plausible t o t h e

first-century

reader. Narrative

c r i t i c i s m o f t h e G o s p e l s is a g r o w i n g field a n d T h a t c h e r d e m o n s t r a t e s h o w it c a n yield insights for G o s p e l studies. Therefore, t h e t h r e e papers o n t h e G o s p e l s offer an i n t e r e s t i n g v a r i e t y o f a p p r o a c h e s a n d m e t h o d ­ ologies t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f e m p i r e a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . The sixth paper, b y Stanley E . Porter, is on Paul a n d empire, spe­ cifically about the relationship o f R o m a n s and 1 a n d 2 C o r i n t h i a n s to R o m a n imperialism manifested in t h e e m p e r o r cult. O n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t recent transformations in t h e study o f Paul has b e e n from seeing Paul as the Jewish religious t e a c h e r into r e c o g n i z i n g Paul the world-citizen within the R o m a n E m p i r e . This paper draws u p o n the c o n c e p t u a l b a c k g r o u n d reflected b y a n u m b e r o f inscriptions that s h o w

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

t h e g r o w i n g R o m a n e m p e r o r cult. I n particular, P o r t e r draws o n t h e bi-lingual c a l e n d a r i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m 9 B C E t o shed light o n t h e t h r e e Pauline letters. P o r t e r draws into discussion a n u m b e r o f public inscriptions f r o m a r o u n d t h e R o m a n E m p i r e that venerate t h e various e m p e r o r s . H e m a i n ­ tains that, at t h e t i m e h e w r o t e R o m a n s , Paul was v e r y familiar with t h e widespread use o f t e r m s that divinized t h e C a e s a r s — h e o n l y h a d t o have his eyes o p e n as h e traveled t h r o u g h o u t A s i a M i n o r . P o r t e r suggests that, in R o m a n s , Paul styles h i m s e l f as t h e e r e c t o r o f a n e w inscription t o t h e t r u e L o r d , Jesus C h r i s t , w h e n h e e x p a n d s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e o p e n i n g that specifies t h e sender. I n t h e prescription, Paul s e e m s t o have captured t h e p o w e r differential b e t w e e n t h e great p r o c o n s u l Paulus Fabius, w h o e r e c t e d t h e c a l e n d r i c a l inscription, a n d Paul t h e slave o f G o d . W h i l e the calendrical inscription proclaimed the birthday o f the divine Caesar, Paul p r o c l a i m e d t h e g o o d news o f t h e c o m i n g o f Jesus Christ. T h e c a l e n d r i c a l inscription states that g o o d favor has fallen o n all h u m a n i t y b e c a u s e o f t h e divine Augustus o n a c c o u n t o f t h e g o o d things that h e has d o n e . Paul in t u r n lays out a n u m b e r o f factors that appropri­ ate t h e language u s e d for deified C a e s a r s t o identify Jesus C h r i s t as t h e ruler w h o t r u m p s Caesar. T h e c a l e n d r i c a l inscription n o t e s t h e benefits that c o m e a b o u t t h r o u g h divine b e n e f i c e n c e , but Paul sees t h e divine benefit in t e r m s o f what we receive t h r o u g h the L o r d Jesus Christ: status in t h e spiritual a n d m a t e r i a l spheres. T h e inscription e n d s with words o f worship a n d o b e d i e n c e , but Paul t r a n s f o r m s t h e k i n d o f o b e d i e n c e that is e x p e c t e d into t h e r e s p o n s e o f faith in all t h e nations. B y n o t i n g this, P o r t e r focuses u p o n o n e particular aspect o f t h e relationship o f P a u l s letters t o t h e R o m a n E m p i r e — h o w Paul creates a c o m p e t i n g narrative o f e m p i r e t o displace t h e o n e c o n c e r n i n g C a e s a r with o n e c o n c e r n i n g t h e L o r d Jesus Christ. T h e implications are s e e n for interpretation o f a n o t h e r k e y passage, R o m 1 3 : 1 - 7 . Paul h a s already s h o w n h i m s e l f t o b e an o p p o n e n t o f t h e R o m a n r e g i m e in t h e epistles o p e n i n g . In R o m a n s 1 3 , t h e authorities are called t o a c c o u n t to b e j u s t authorities, and, b e c a u s e C h r i s t i a n s are u n d e r t h e Lordship o f Christ, t h e y are called t o o b e y j u s t authorities—unjust authorities fall outside t h e p a r a m e t e r s that Paul defines. The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s u c h a C h r i s t - f o c u s e d h i e r a r c h y are also seen in 1 a n d 2 C o r i n t h i a n s . Paul argues for a r e p l a c e m e n t o f o n e h i e r a r c h y o f t h e G r e c o - R o m a n p a t r o n a g e system, w h i c h was t h e basis o f abuse

11

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

12

in the C o r i n t h i a n c h u r c h , with a divine hierarchy that incidentally overthrows distinctions b a s e d o n status, power, a n d wealth. Paul is n o t replacing authority with n o authority o r hierarchy with n o hierarchy, but he is replacing a false "son o f god" with the true "son o f God." In 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 7, G o d is seen as t h e ultimate authority, Jesus C h r i s t is the m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n G o d a n d humanity, a n d Paul is his trustworthy c o m ­ municative servant to the C o r i n t h i a n church. Similarly, in t h e passage about the c o l l e c t i o n that Paul was taking up for t h e J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h in 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 8, there is a clear hierarchy o f b e n e f i c e n c e that b e g i n s with t h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t and passes through Paul to t h e believers in C o r i n t h and t h e n to t h e believers in Jerusalem. Paul replaces t h e p o s i ­ tion o f C a e s a r with that o f t h e L o r d Jesus Christ, with a resulting m o r a l accountability to G o d . T h e r e is n o divide b e t w e e n serving G o d and the state. O n e can o n l y serve the state by following the L o r d Jesus Christ. Porter demonstrates h o w layers o f c o n t e x t c o n s t r a i n a n d interpret texts o n empire. In light o f t h e calendrical inscription, Paul's letter o p e n ­ ing is a displacement o f the e m p i r e narrative with the c o m p e t i n g narra­ tive o f the Lord Jesus Christ. P o r t e r uses this understanding to explicate and constrain R o m 13:1 - 7 , a p r o b l e m passage in t h e relationship o f early Christianity and empire, where h e similarly sees t h e authorities relativ­ ized b y the Lordship o f Christ so that only just authorities are t o b e obeyed. H e finds this approach consistent with the c o n c e p t o f hierarchy and authority in 1 and 2 C o r i n t h i a n s , a larger circle o f literary c o n t e x t in the Pauline corpus. T h e seventh paper, b y M a t t h e w Forrest Lowe, is o n a t o n e m e n t and empire in the M i n o r Pauline Epistles. Notwithstanding the authorship disputes c o n c e r n i n g this corpus, L o w e adopts a presupposition o f basic unity, b o t h o f c a n o n and thought, a m o n g the b o o k s . This paper shows that, in his m i n o r (shorter) epistles, Paul sought out ways o f izing and circumscribing

contextual-

Rome's power, largely through his appropria­

tion o f language and i m a g e r y from two very different frameworks: the traditions o f his Scriptures o n the o n e hand, and t h e ideologies o f R o m e o n the other. T h e resulting dialectic helped Paul to c o n s t r u c t a counterimperial t h e o l o g y o f the a t o n e m e n t : crucified and resurrected life in the face o f imperial death. In Ephesians, t h e language o f Christ's s u p r e m a c y over the "powers" and the appropriation o f divine-warfare myths from t h e O l d Testament are placed in imperial contexts. E a r t h l y political forces would b e c o n s i d -

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

ered a m o n g t h e p a n t h e o n o f powers in E p h 6:12. W i t h the citation o f Ps 68:18 a n d its application in Eph 4 : 8 - 1 6 , Paul depicts C h r i s t at his resur­ rection leading his captives in an imperial t r i u m p h that evokes d e m o n ­ strations o f p o w e r in R o m a n military p r a c t i c e — a "victorious siege" a n d a t r i u m p h over his o p p o n e n t s . W r i t t e n while Paul was in imperial i m p r i s o n m e n t , Philippians uses t h e prison c o n t e x t to focus u p o n citizenship, peace, a n d t h e crucifixion as t h e focal p o i n t o f t h e C h r i s t - h y m n in Philippians 2 . T h e reference to citizenship in heaven in Phil 3 : 2 0 indicates a degree o f expatriated dis­ c o n t e n t with R o m a n citizenship. T h e p e a c e o f G o d in Phil 1:2 is i n i m i c a l to t h e R o m a n peace. T h e C h r i s t h y m n in Phil 2 : 6 - 1 1 c o m b i n e s Jesus' o b e d i e n c e t o Rome's p o w e r over life and death at the death o f t h e cross (a clear s t a m p o f e m p i r e ) with his ascent and exaltation, r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e exaltation o f a R o m a n e m p e r o r in t h e description o f t h e ascension. Similarly, t h e r e is e m p i r e a n d t r i u m p h i m a g e r y in C o l 1 : 1 5 - 2 0 a n d 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 . C h r i s t is t h e i m a g e o f t h e invisible G o d that c o u n t e r s t h e l o g o s o f R o m e a n d its sustaining m y t h o f pax Romana.

C h r i s t is

s u p r e m e o v e r all p o w e r a n d authority, i n c l u d i n g R o m e ' s . T h e state e x ­ e c u t i o n o f C h r i s t b y R o m e is t h e m e a n s o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . T h e n C h r i s t d i s a r m s t h e p o w e r s a n d authorities at his m o m e n t o f greatest w e a k n e s s and triumphs over them. In 1 a n d 2 Thessalonians, while references to idol worship and king­ d o m / d o m i n i o n are directed at empire, t h e strongest l o c u s o f imperial c o n t e n t is located in 1 Thess 4 : 1 3 - 1 8 a n d 5:3, where t h e Lord's

parousia

c o n t a i n s loaded imperial content, a n d the empire's offer o f p e a c e and security is nullified. Paul renders t h e parousia

as a clear imitation o f t h e

imperial event o f a royal visitation, where the t o m b s a n d m a u s o l e u m s o f t h e dead are e n c o u n t e r e d first a n d a greeting c o m m i t t e e m e e t s h i m a n d e s c o r t s h i m b a c k . T h e t i m i n g o f his c o m i n g will disrupt the imperial p r o g r a m o f p e a c e a n d security. Paul also c o - o p t s imperial t e r m s , slogans, a n d titles in Titus a n d 1 a n d 2 T i m o t h y . T h e s e t e r m s include savior, king, a n d despot, a n d rep­ resent language n o r m a l l y reserved for h u m a n masters a n d rulers. Lowe m a i n t a i n s that there is serious risk in this k i n d o f counter-rhetoric—it is o n l y effective w h e n it r e m a i n s distinctive from b o t h its sources and opposition. Finally, Paul interacts with the R o m a n ideology o f captivity and m a s t e r y in P h i l e m o n . Paul h i m s e l f is in captivity enforced b y R o m e

13

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

14

and argues for a b r o a d e r "ethic o f liberation" i n f o r m e d b y Christ's death o n a cross, w h i c h disrupts empire's societal structure b y disrupting t h e "proper" c h a n n e l s o f power. As it c o r r e s p o n d s in m a n y points t o Thatcher's paper c o n c e r n i n g the challenge t o empire o f t h e G o s p e l o f John's story o f the crucifix­ ion, Lowe's paper m a k e s a significant c o n t r i b u t i o n in giving direction to a N e w T e s t a m e n t biblical t h e o l o g y o f the cross in t h e face o f empire. His emphasis u p o n finding consistent theological t h e m e s that c o u n t e r empire in all o f the m i n o r Pauline letters adds t o t h e strength o f his analysis. T h e eighth paper is b y C y n t h i a L o n g Westfall o n t h e varied re­ sponses t o empire in early Jewish Christianity. Westfall m a i n t a i n s that the early literature o f Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y in the G e n e r a l Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation m a y provide the clearest a n d m o s t overt e x ­ amples o f resistance to the R o m a n E m p i r e in the N e w Testament. H e r analysis draws directly from t h e traditions o f J u d a i s m a n d t h e relation­ ship o f Judaism with past empires including Egypt, Assyria, B a b y l o n , Persia, and G r e e c e . Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y o c c u p i e d an increasingly difficult position as hostility built b e t w e e n t h e R o m a n E m p i r e a n d Christianity, and b e t w e e n the R o m a n E m p i r e a n d Judaism, a n d alienation increased b e t w e e n Jewish Christians and Jews. T h e resulting e c o n o m i c , social, and even legal losses, as well as threats t o life and property, in t h e Jewish Christian c o m m u n i t i e s provided harsh realities that required a response and various strategies. E a c h o n e o f the texts o f early Jewish Christianity in the n o n Pauline epistles and h o m i l i e s has a t e n d e n c y t o negotiate o n e aspect o f empire m o r e distinctively t h a n others, so that Westfall c h o o s e s a differ­ ent lens t h r o u g h w h i c h e a c h epistle is viewed. J a m e s is analyzed with an e c o n o m i c m o d e l , and addresses e c o n o m i c issues including exploita­ tion, materialism, and poverty. 1 Peter is analyzed with a social patronal m o d e l , in t e r m s o f secured h o n o r a n d dignity for t h e powerless. In 2 Peter, Jude, a n d t h e J o h a n n i n e Epistles, the relationship o f Christian values t o the culture o f the empire is e x a m i n e d , b e c a u s e t h e y each stress the ethics a n d values that set God's k i n g d o m apart. H e b r e w s is analyzed with a religious/political m o d e l b e c a u s e it challenged t h e R o m a n view o f reality a n d k i n g d o m . Finally, Revelation is viewed as r u n n i n g the gamut o f the c o n c e r n s that Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y faced as it negotiated a peril­ ous path a m o n g the R o m a n E m p i r e , Judaism, a n d G e n t i l e Christianity.

P O R T E R A N D W E S T F A L L — E m p i r e , the New Testament,

and Beyond

The s p e c t r u m o f issues in t h e o t h e r b o o k s is sharpened b y persecution a n d m a r t y r d o m . J o h n holds t h e R o m a n E m p i r e responsible for idolatry, blasphemy, sexual immorality, persecution, exploitation, a n d material­ ism. T h e R o m a n E m p i r e is d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g in c o m p e t i t i o n with G o d s sovereignty a n d is d o o m e d to destruction. T h e b e l i e v e r s response to an oppressive e m p i r e b e g i n s with personal r e p e n t a n c e that disassociates from t h e patterns o f abuse a n d includes non-violent active resistance. Positively, believers find their position, value, a n d reality in t h e k i n g d o m of God. Similar to Lowe, Westfall surveys empire t h e m e s in an identifiable corpus, but she suggests that the corpus o f Hebrews, t h e G e n e r a l Epistles, a n d Revelation shares t h e c o m m o n c o n t e x t o f Jewish Christianity that creates an identifiably different response t h a n that found in t h e Pauline letters to t h e G e n t i l e churches. T h e nature a n d p u r p o s e o f the texts is quite different from that o f t h e Gospels, so that the relationship o f these texts t o imperial issues is comparatively m o r e overt a n d identifiable t h a n in M a t t h e w a n d J o h n (arguably Jewish Christian literature). T h e Jewish C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t i e s o c c u p i e d a far m o r e vulnerable position as t h e y fought for t h e i r e x i s t e n c e o n two fronts. Tlie direct interaction with this shared c o n t e x t p r o d u c e d sharper, less veiled responses to empire o n the s a m e trajectory as t h e historic response o f Israel to its o t h e r oppressors, so that Westfall's paper is directly related to Stuart's argument that the Jewish literature displays a general resistance to the pagan mentality o f empire. The final paper is a response to and interaction with the previ­ ous papers b y G o r d o n Heath. However, this paper is cast in the nature o f giving "the rest o f t h e story." Heath b e g i n s his interaction with t h e presentations with an overview o f s o m e o f the issues that have shaped p o s t - H o l o c a u s t N e w T e s t a m e n t studies. After a b r i e f summary, Heath provides an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e earliest church fathers' view o f e m ­ pire as a foil t o t h e a r g u m e n t s in t h e papers. Heath c o n t e n d s that the early c h u r c h fathers were critical o f R o m e , b u t that criticism did n o t include an outright rejection o f t h e benefits o f R o m a n rule—the early c h u r c h "did n o t follow t h e b o o k o f Revelation in identifying R o m e with 4

Antichrist." E l e m e n t s that indicated support o f t h e e m p i r e included the use o f military m e t a p h o r s , Tertullian's use o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t that was n o t explicitly hostile, a n d positive a c t i o n s and statements that c o n 4. As quoted from Bainton, Historical Survey, 75.

15

16

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

c e r n e d Christians serving in t h e R o m a n military. Even Tertullian urged Christians t o pray for their rulers b e c a u s e the e m p i r e was holding b a c k disaster. T h e criticisms o f it prophesied its demise, j u d g e d it for its sins, prohibited service in the m i l i t a r y and as a magistrate, and c h o s e m a r ­ t y r d o m rather t h a n to s u b m i t to e m p e r o r worship o r o t h e r idolatrous demands. However, Heath c l a i m s that the critical issue was idolatry, n o t resistance t o imperial power. Therefore, Heath c o n c l u d e s that the refusal t o say "Caesar is L o r d " is not to b e confused with an anti-imperial attitude; there was a high degree o f sympathy for the empire, t h e c h u r c h fathers help us deal with contentious passages such as R o m a n s 13, and finally, we n e e d t o see that a progression t o C o n s t a n t i n e a n d a Christian empire was n o t a radical departure from t h e early years o f Christianity u n d e r R o m e . In H e a t h s view, the early c h u r c h fathers navigated the c o n t e x t o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e with the tension o f dual citizenship. H e a t h s paper cautions against buying every critical t h e o r y within the p o s t m o d e r n world, suggesting that in s o m e theories t h e intention o f the author b e c o m e s at best a s e c o n d a r y c o n c e r n . W h i l e h e grants that Revelation is directed at the R o m a n E m p i r e , h e questions w h e t h e r this was the intention o f the o t h e r N e w T e s t a m e n t writers. After each paper was presented in its oral f o r m , questions were invited from t h e o t h e r presenters a n d t h o s e in attendance. At the end o f the day, we had a panel discussion that allowed further interaction a m o n g the individual c o n t r i b u t o r s and b e t w e e n the contributors and the general audience. A n u m b e r o f different questions were raised and insights were gleaned that b e c a m e a platform for further w o r k o n the topic for s o m e o f the contributors. W h a t is m o s t apparent in review is that, individually, the resulting chapters offer a diverse representation o f different m e t h o d s and positions in regard to understanding the relation­ ship o f empire and the N e w Testament. Together, however, the papers offer a representative and t h o r o u g h sample o f the c u r r e n t state o f study o f the n o t i o n o f empire and t h e N e w Testament.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainton, Roland. A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.

1

The Old Testament Context of David s Costly Flirtation with Empire-Building

DOUGLAS K . STUART

T

HIS PAPER is A N admittedly ambitious attempt to do three things:

first, via a b r i e f but hopefully representative survey, to seek a basic

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the nature o f the "mentality" o f e m p i r e in the ancient N e a r East; s e c o n d , b y a n o t h e r b r i e f but hopefully representative

survey

to identify the "mentality" toward empire o f the O l d Testament; and, with these c o n t e x t s as b a c k g r o u n d , to analyze an attempt m a d e b y K i n g D a v i d to b e g i n to establish an empire o f his own. THE MENTALITYOF EMPIRE IN T H E ANCIENT NEAR EAST

1

C o n s i d e r an initial example o f the ancient Near Eastern mentality o f empire: In t h e following excerpt o f a relatively short Egyptian histori1. The characterization of the mentality (outlook/attitude/mode of thought) of em­ pire in the ancient Near East that I propose here (in this case, from "scratch") is, to my judgment, not inconsistent with the theory of empire advanced by Motyl, Imperial Ends. My summary of the ancient imperialistic mentality is obviously in part conjectural as well as admittedly inductive and synthetic. It represents an assessment of common fac­ tors in the Weltanschauung of ancient Near Eastern empires, even though it can hardly be doubted that various cultures and kings would have had somewhat different ways of looking at and rationalizing their imperialism. We have no single document from the ancient world in which an empire-minded monarch tells us systematically all the rea­ sons that went into his decision to try to build an empire. But we do have a considerable number of documents in which kings speak or are spoken about in connection with one or more of the reasons why they set about to increase their territories by annexing or in some way controlling the territories of others. Putting these statements together

17

ι8

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T 2

cal record, P h a r a o h K a - m o s e states his case for re-establishment o f the Egyptian e m p i r e ( U p p e r a n d Lower Egypt and, presumably, the tradi­ tional buffer territories adjoining t h e m n o r t h and south) in a speech to his advisors, ca. 1 5 7 5 B C E :

3

His majesty spoke in his palace to the council of nobles who were in his retinue: "Let me understand what this strength of mine is for. (One) prince is in Avaris, another is in Nubia, (and) here I sit associated with an Asiatic and a Nubian! Each man has his slice of this Egypt, dividing up the land with me . . . No man can settle down, being despoiled by the taxes imposed by the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may cut open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatics!" 4

5

His advisors suggest d o i n g n o t h i n g except b e i n g ready defensively, since there have already b e e n decades o f fighting against the H y k s o s

6

and they d o not want m o r e war: The great men of his council spoke: "Behold it is Asiatic water as far as Cusae . . . [and] we are at ease in our (part of) Egypt. Elephantine is strong, and the middle (of the land) is with us as 7

and analyzing them, subjective as that process may be, permits at least a general picture of the ancient Near Eastern mentality of empire to emerge. The picture here set forth derives inductively from a variety of sources—annals, chronicles, law codes, treaties, proclamations, etc. —and yet, even though it is a composite from such sources, I believe it may be considered an approximate portrayal of the actual attitudes that prevailed widely in the ancient world. 2. In all probability, a propagandistic one designed in part to provide an apologia for the pharaohs accomplishments during his reign. 3. The translation is mostly verbatim from Wilsons rendering of "The War against the Hyksos" in ANET 232-33, with minor modifications (for example, what he trans­ lates as "Negro" I have translated as "Nubian," and what he translates as "impost" I have translated as "taxes imposed," etc.). 4. Probably Tell El-Dab'a, a Nile delta city occupied by the Hyksos and made their capital in Egypt. It has sometimes been identified with biblical Zoan/Tanis, but this identification is now generally disputed as unlikely. 5. I.e., imposed on native Egyptians in the enemy-held regions previously held by Egypt. 6. Hyksos were Asiatic imperialists who had conquered Egypt and ruled it (though not always the entirety of its territory) from about 1725 to 1550 BCE. The term Hyksos is a hellenization of the original Egyptian hk3w h3swt, lit., "rulers of mountainous places," i.e., "foreign rulers." 7. Egyptian Qis, modern el-Qusiya. It was the capital of the fourteenth nome of Upper Egypt.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with Empire-Building

far as Cusae . . . He [the enemy] holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt. Should someone come and act [against us], then we shall act against him!" 8

P h a r a o h K a - m o s e was having n o n e o f this

stay-safe-at-home,

limited-territory advice: Then they were hurtful to the heart of his majesty: "As for this plan of yours,... he who divides the land with me will not respect me. [Shall I res]pect these Asiatics . . . ? I shall sail north to reach Lower Egypt. If I fight with the Asiatics, success will come . . . Ka-mose, the protector of Egypt!" Having rejected the advice o f his counselors as inferior to that o f his divine counselor, the g o d A m o n , the p h a r a o h went o n the attack a n d s u c c e e d e d in restoring m u c h o f lower Egypt to Egyptian sovereignty, paving the way for the further conquests o f the u p c o m i n g Eighteenth Dynasty: I went north because I was strong enough to attack the Asiatics through the command of Amon, the just of counsels. My valiant army was in front of me like a blast of fire I attacked him. I broke down his walls, I killed his people . . . A s e c o n d e x a m p l e involves Sargon o f A k k a d (ca. 2 3 7 1 - 2 3 1 6 B C E ) , usually t h o u g h t o f as the greatest o f the early M e s o p o t a m i a n emperors. In the following excerpt o f what is typically called either the "Legend o f Sargon" o r the " B i r t h L e g e n d o f Sargon," h e is quoted speaking o f his o w n far-ranging imperialistic exploits, but also tellingly o f his e x p e c t a ­ tion that the kings w h o follow h i m in governing his empire should do the s a m e i f t h e y are truly w o r t h y o f the office:

9

10

The black-headed [people] 1 ruled, I gov[erned]; Mighty [moun] tains with chip-axes of bronze I conquered, The upper ranges I scaled, The lower ranges I [trav]ersed, The sea [lan]ds three times I circled.

8. In fact, they held only half of Egypt and were putting the best face on a bad situ­ ation in order to avoid war with the Hyksos Asiatics. 9. Taken from Speiser,"The Legend of Sargon," A/V£T 119; also in Hallo and Younger, eds., Context of Scripture [hereafter COS]), 1.133. 10. This was a standard designation in Akkadian for Sumerians as well as Semites in general.

19

20

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T 11

Dilmun my [hand] cap[tured], [To] the great D e r I [went u p ] . . . [K]azallu 1 destroyed and . . . Whatever king may come up after m e , . . . Let him r[ule, let him govern] the black-headed [peo]ple, [Let him conquer] mighty [mountains] with chip axe[s of bronze], [Let] him scale the upper ranges, Let him traverse the lower ranges, Let him circle the sea [lan]ds three times! [Dilmun let his hand capture], Let him go up [to] the great Der and . . . 12

13

1 4

Clearly, c o n q u e r i n g distant lands was a m a r k o f greatness in Sargon s view, a n d he challenges his successors to do the s a m e — n o t necessarily as a way o f b o a s t i n g o f his u n i q u e n e s s ("Just try to do what Fve d o n e i f you t h i n k you can!") but m o r e likely as an example o f what p r o p e r successor e m p e r o r s should likewise do ( " I f f v e d o n e it, you should, t o o ! " ) .

15

11. Dilmun was an idealized land referred to in many Mesopotamian myths, some­ thing of a cross between an earthly Eden and a heavenly paradise. Some scholars have identified what Sargon claims to have captured with Bahrain, for which there is some later inscriptional support, but this may be the result of later naming the impressivelysituated island of Bahrain after the earlier-heralded ethereal location first imagined by the Sumerians in myths (cf. the way that a number of places in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. are named "Eden"). In other words, Sargon may be saying something like, "I conquered to the very edge of heaven!" 12. Modern Tel-Aqar, a powerful ancient Mesopotamian city, whose impressive great temple dates to 2500 BCE. 13. Kazallu was the capital of a small, independent Amorite empire ruled by dy­ nasty in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BCE. When Sargon conquered it, it was probably, likewise, the center of some sort of modest empire. 14. Although it might appear from the heavy use of brackets and italics that Speiser has taken liberties in his restoration of the text, in fact he was working with two neoAssyrian copies and one neo-Babylonian fragment, from the collation of which (and from the internal repetitions) he could make confident reconstructions, as King had also earlier done for the same document (King, Chronicles, 87-96). 15. Sargons "legend" may have been embellished as regards his origins (prominent in the legend was the claim that he had been born secretly and set adrift in an ark of bulrushes on the waters of the Euphrates, not unlike Moses, and that he was rescued and brought up by a farmer). But the point of this was clearly to highlight the fact that it was his drive for greatness via empire that made him a success as an emperor, rather than that he simply inherited an empire from someone else by reason of royal birth. In his adult life, he served first as a "cupbearer" (i.e., a court administrator, not merely a household worker) to a king of Kish, but as soon as he himself won kingship, he set out enthusiastically for foreign conquests, initiated by invading the empire of King Lugal-

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

As a third example, we cite p o r t i o n s o f the prologue to the famous law c o d e o f H a m m u r a b i the Great (ca. 1 7 2 8 - 1 6 8 6 B C E ) , in w h i c h H a m m u r a b i m a k e s certain claims about his right to rule a great empire and to i m p o s e u p o n it his will, including his will in the form o f legal practices t o b e standardized and extrapolated f r o m

16

t h r o u g h o u t his

empire: When lofty Anum, king of the Annunaki, (and) Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land, determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, the Enlil functions over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, made it supreme in the world, established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as heaven and earth— at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over the black-headed (people), and to light up the land. [I am] the one who strides through the four quarters of the world; who makes the name of Babylon great; who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord;... Zage-Si and adding it to Akkad. He invaded Syria and Canaan four separate times, and devoted three full years to the conquest of the countries of "the west" (he even speaks of getting copper in "Magan" [Oman]) in order to annex them to Mesopotamia, thus forming, as he boasted, "a single empire." He subdued northern Mesopotamia, includ­ ing Gutium and the Elamite empire, which he annexed to his own. His armies placed statues of Sargon at several sites on the Mediterranean in honor of his victories. He built and rebuilt both cities and palaces in central and southern Mesopotamia, financed by the spoils of the conquered lands. Sargons sons were weak, but his grandson Naram-Sin carried on his imperialistic enterprises and conquered such places as Oman (taking its king prisoner), Ebla (the headquarters of an empire of its own) and a place called "Armani" that is arguably to be identified with Armenia. Naram-Sin regularly referred to himself in official documents as "King of the Four Quarters [of the world]," and also enjoyed the title "god of Akkad." 16. As in Pentateuchal law, the individual prescriptions were intended to serve not only as determinative in their own right but as examples to be extrapolated from in deciding related cases.

21

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

22

god among kings, acquainted with wisdom . . . the one who seizes the foe . . . who pacifies the heart of Adad, the warrior . . . the chief of kings, a fighter without p e e r . . . who made his kingdom great; the first of kings; the subduer of the settlements along the Euphrates with the help of Dagan, his creator . . . the king who has made the four quarters of the world subservient.. }

7

H a m m u r a b i c o n n e c t e d his influence t h r o u g h o u t his empire to a great­ ness given h i m b y the gods, a greatness he exercised b y right, from his point o f view, appropriately i m p o s e d b y force u p o n o t h e r people groups and their territories for t h e g o o d o f all c o n c e r n e d . A fourth e x a m p l e c o m e s from the b e g i n n i n g o f the " D e c r e e o f Cyrus" in E z r a 1:2: This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth ..." H e r e Cyrus attributes his right to rule and the actual a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f his empire, in typical Persian syncretistic fashion, to Yahweh, w h o as "the G o d o f heaven" had decided that Persia should rule the k n o w n world starting in the middle o f the sixth c e n t u r y B C E . F r o m m a n y texts o f w h i c h these are but examples, very disparate t h o u g h such texts are in p r o v e n a n c e , we can learn s o m e t h i n g o f what I believe m a y b e posited as the c o m m o n "mentality o f empire" in the ancient N e a r East. T h e ingredients o f that mentality o f empire m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as follows. 1. C e r t a i n kings, selected and favored by the gods, and the nations they rule, have b o t h the divine right and a divinely-assigned duty to subdue, a n n e x , o r subjugate others, thus creating an empire. It is their destiny to do this, just as it is the destiny o f o t h e r nations to b e subdued and m a d e subservient to an e m p i r e .

18

17. ANET 163-80; COS 2.131. 18. As an example, an excerpt from the Egyptian version of a treaty of Ramses II with the Hittites, reproduced on the walls of the Amon temple at Karnak, shows the sense of the pharaoh that his imperialism was the will of the gods:"... his majesty was ... doing the pleasure of his father, Amon-Re, Har-Akhti, Atum, Lord of the Two Lands, the Heliopolitan, Amon of Ramses Men-Amon, and [Seth], the Great of Strength, the Son of Nut, according as they give him an eternity of jubilees and an infinity of years

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with Empire-Building

23

2. As various gods c o n t e n d with o n e a n o t h e r for p o w e r in the heavenly realm,

19

t h o s e gods (usually national gods) w h o e m e r g e supreme in the

p a n t h e o n naturally will cause their client nations to e m e r g e s u p r e m e o n the earthly s c e n e . Thus the fortunes o f the nations are tied to the for­ tunes o f t h e g o d s .

20

3. E m p i r e s exist for the benefit primarily o f the controlling m o n a r c h y a n d the " h o m e " nation, rather t h a n as c o m m o n w e a l t h s . Thus the

finan­

cial bleeding o f c o n q u e r e d o r subjugated lands via tribute, tax, a n d t o l l

21

is permissible a n d expected. It is the right o f s o m e nations to enrich themselves via empire a n d the required role o f o t h e r nations to provide the r i c h e s .

22

of peace, while all lands and all foreign countries are prostrate under his soles forever ..." ANET 200. And from a historical prism of the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BCE): "With the help of Ashur (and) Shamash, the great gods, my lords, I, Tukultiapilesarra, King of Assyria... am a conqueror (of the regions) from the Great Sea which is in the country of Amurru as far as the Great Sea which is in the Nairi country." From the "throne inscription" and bronze gate inscription of Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE): "(I am) Shalmaneser, the legitimate king, the king of the world, the king without rival, the 'Great Dragon,' the (only) power within the (four) rims (of the earth), overlord of all the princes, who has smashed all his enemies as if (they were) earthenware, the strong man, unsparing, who shows no mercy in battie . . . a conqueror from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea... At that time [Ashur, the great lord... gave me scepter, staff] ... necessary (to rule) the people ..." ANET 276-77; cf. COS 2.113A. 19. See, e.g., the series of Hittite myths such as "The Moon that Fell from Heaven," the Kumarbis myth published as "Kingship in Heaven," "The Song of Ullikummis,""The Myth of Illuyankis," and "The Telepinus Myth" (tr. A. Goetze), ANET 120-28; cf. COS 1.57. All these myths involve rivalries and battles among the gods, and were important to the ancients not because of mere story interest, but because they explained how the fortunes of earthly peoples gods related to earthly peoples' fortunes. 20. In one sense, mutatis mutandis, this concept that what happens on earth re­ flects what happens in heaven is biblical. Deborah, following the concepts of Holy War (see below), describes how "the stars fought from the heavens/the stars fought with Sisera" (Judg 5:20) as a poetic way of indicating heavenly leadership in the battle for control of northern Canaan. Psalm 18:14 depicts Gods lightning bolts as the equivalent of heavenly artillery dispersing Israels enemies. Pagan notions of the gods' warfare as influencing that on earth can be understood as degenerated, polytheistic reflections of a valid theology. 21. E.g., Ezra 4:13,20; 7:24. 22. Ah-mose, a boat captain in the military of Thut-mose 1(1570-1545 BCE) tells of seven different times when he was awarded gold by the pharaoh as part of the sharing of the spoils of war, as well as slaves (captured prisoners) and other plunder. In speaking of the emperors attitude, he adds: "[Thut-mose] went forth to Retenu [Syria-Palestine] to assuage his heart throughout the foreign countries . . . His Majesty made a great

24

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

4. It is predictable that c o n q u e r e d o r subjugated lands will attempt to rebel so as t o t h r o w off t h e y o k e o f empire. Therefore a m a r k o f a great e m p e r o r is his ability t o k e e p foreign lands subjugated and obedient within t h e e m p i r e .

23

Propagandistic t e c h n i q u e s o f various sorts m a y b e

required t o help subjugated nations realize and accept their role and to help the imperialistic "core" n a t i o n put forth the n e c e s s a r y effort to m a i n t a i n its e m p i r e .

24

5. O n e indication o f t h e greatness o f a national g o d and, likewise, o f the king that h e

2 5

s p o n s o r s in e m p i r e - c r e a t i o n is the extent o f the empire in 26

size a n d w e a l t h . A n o t h e r is the speed with which t h e e m p e r o r c o n q u e r s other territories.

27

6. A n o t h e r indication o f the greatness o f a g o d a n d his e m p e r o r is the duration o f the empire—including b o t h the ability o f kings to pass on their empires t o their heirs (with t h e help o f the sponsoring god) and their ability (and their heirs' a b i l i t y )

28

t o protect it from rebellion by

subjugated peoples o r takeover by o t h e r empires, b e c a u s e , in spite o f slaughter among them. There was no number to the living prisoners that His Majesty carried off by his victory." (ANET 233-34; COS 2.1). 23. Perhaps the parade example of this is Darius Is defeat of nine kings in nineteen different major battles in a single year, 522-521 BCE, in the process of re-establishing the Persian empire that had begun to slip away after the death of Cyrus, and—in spite of Cambyses' successes in Egypt and elsewhere—especially quickly after the death of Cambyses. Sustaining an empire was often very hard work. 24. "Thus the target of Assyrian royal propaganda was not only the people of the Assyrian Empire but also those in the heavens and those in the future" (Sparks, Ancient Texts, 355). 25. Or, theoretically, "she," but there appear to be few examples of an empire spon­ sored specifically by a female national god in the ancient Near East. 26. Even though the notion that Alexander "wept that he had no more worlds to conquer" is modern and apocryphal, Virgil did say in the Aeneid that Caesar, out of noble envy, wept at the victories of Alexander, as also did Plutarch, who quotes Caesar as saying after considering Alexanders achievements, "'Do you think,' said he,'I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?'" See Clough, trans., Plutarch's Lives, 299. 27. See Stuart, "The Sovereigns Day of Conquest." 28. Illustrative of this is a demand of Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE) to various vassal kings requiring them to be loyal to his son and successor Asshurbanipal: "You will love Asshurbanipal as yourselves" (49 col. iv, cited in Wiseman, "Vassal-Treaties," 266-68). See also the collation of similar expressions in Moran, "Background," 77-87.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

p r o p a g a n d a to the contrary, there was a sense that n o empire could last forever.

29

7. Thus, w h e n o n e e m p i r e c a n take over a n o t h e r in its entirety, it is a m a r k o f real greatness, s o m e t h i n g to b e coveted for o n e s press reports, as it w e r e .

30

I f an e m p i r e c a n take over a n o t h e r a n d then c o n t i n u e t o e x t e n d

its e m p i r e even further, it is i n d e e d a m a r k o f true greatness.

31

8. A n e m p i r e s worth o r legitimacy was a matter o f subjective perspec­ tive—the decision b e i n g essentially chauvinistic a n d self-centered. I f your territory were c o n q u e r e d , you tended to hate the empire and reject its validity; i f you c o n q u e r e d a n o t h e r nation in the process o f establish­ ing your empire, you t e n d e d to have n o doubt as to the divine right o f your conquest. Thus, in spite o f m a n y examples o f pragmatic willingness to c o o p e r a t e with empires out o f a motive o f self-preservation (such as is exemplified b y the Judean kings during the days o f the neo-Assyrian empire in the eighth and seventh centuries B C E ) , generally, subjugated

29. Even though empire-minded kings and their supporters surely wanted it so and may have employed wishful thinking to try to make it seem so. The remarkably careless attitude of Belshazzar described in Daniel 5 (feasting with the empires leadership as the enemy Persian armies were at the gates of Babylon) is sometimes thought to reflect a resignation to the inevitable and therefore the desire for one last fling before destruc­ tion, but it could equally have been an evidence of denial by one who saw himself the latest in a long line of great and powerful monarchs of an empire that could hardly be imagined as ever coming to an end. 30. The Esarhaddon Chronicle, a Babylonian chronicle from a time when the Babylonians recognized the Assyrian king Esarhaddon as their king, conveniently leaves out negative or embarrassing events during the reign of the neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE), presenting Esarhaddon always in a good light, and omit­ ting any mention of the major defeat in his sixth year, i.e., the capture and plundering of the city of Sippar by the Elamites, something Esarhaddon was apparently unable to prevent. Thus the chronicle keeps alive via pretense of the empire mentality that Esarhaddon had preserved the Assyrian empire in its entirety. 31. So the desire of the neo-Babylonians, especially via the conquests of Nebu­ chadnezzar, to outdo what the neo-Assyrians had done, and the Persians under Cyrus the Great to extend their empire even beyond (but certainly including) what the Babylonians had captured, etc. In a certain sense, this "ever bigger, ever better' mental­ ity forms part of the context for Daniel's revelation of the "kingdom of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:18,22,25,27) as the stopping point for all this succession of progres­ sively greater empires, since once the saints inherit "the kingdom" they keep it—nobody else is allowed to come along and threaten their possession, because the very nature of the kingdom has changed to one that is no longer merely a matter of human, earthly conquest and control.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

peoples were hostile to t h e empires that subjugated t h e m and eager for freedom from t h e b o n d a g e o f b e i n g forced into an e m p i r e . 9. E m p i r e s h a d a right to b e religiously imperialistic.

32

33

10. E m p i r e s b r i n g p e a c e and tranquility to a series o f lands. It is the right and responsibility o f an e m p e r o r t o d o m i n a t e his own people and subju­ gate o t h e r peoples in order to establish this p e a c e .

34

11. T h e will o f t h e gods and t h e will o f the e m p e r o r were coordinated, i f not o n e a n d t h e s a m e .

35

T h e r e was an alliance b e t w e e n t h e religious and the political in the mentality o f empire. Political decisions to attack and c o n q u e r a n d / o r threaten a n d subjugate o t h e r nations were m a d e b y a king and his advi­ sors politically, but these were seen at the s a m e t i m e as decisions m a d e in heaven b y gods, m o s t especially the national god o f the imperialistic na­ tion, w h o s e will the h u m a n king and his nation were carrying out. K i n g s rarely o m i t reference t o their divinely-directed mission at the s a m e t i m e

32. Thus even a puppet king like Zedekiah, who owed his throne to appointment by an emperor (2 Kgs 24:15-17) eventually was willing to risk everything for the sake of freedom from under the boot of the empire (2 Kgs 24:20—25:7). In fact, he never stood a chance, but he was willing, somewhat naively, to try. 33. For the Egyptians, this came naturally from the theology that their king was a god. The pharaoh was frequently referred to as "the good god" (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 75), a beneficent spreader of influence through conquest, one who could put subdued territories on a right course. 34. Even if that peace is established in the manner of a pax romana. As Gardiner comments, the Egyptian pharaohs were considered rightfully the rulers of the world, and this was indicated even via the use of the cartouche to encircle their names: "... the idea was to represent the king as ruler of all 'that which is encircled by the sun,' a frequently expressed notion" (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 74). 35. Consider this evidence of imperialistic divine-human symbiosis, in which Amon-Re, the sun god and god of Thebes, speaks to the eighteenth-dynasty pharaoh Thutmosis III (1479-1425 BCE): "My son, my avenger, Menkheperre [Thutmosis' prenomen] may he live eternally. I shine forth through your love. Endue my hands— your body—with the protection of life. How sweet is your pleasure against my breast! I establish you in my sanctuary. I marvel at you. I place your might and the fear of you in all lands, dread of you to the limits of the four supports of heaven" (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 90, translation slightly modified). Assyrian Annals had "bombastic and superlative descriptions of the king as well as . . . self-aggrandizing descriptions of building projects, military feats, and booty lists" (Sparks, Ancient Texts, 370).

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

that t h e y speak frankly o f their political-military agendas and a c c o m ­ plishments.

36

N o t to seek empire was a sign o f failure and w e a k n e s s .

37

12. T h e right to control o t h e r countries extended even to the right to rearrange their populations via deportations ( e x i l e s ) — s o m e t h i n g used b o t h as a threat and actually c o n d u c t e d regularly t h r o u g h o u t the sec­ o n d a n d first m i l l e n n i a B C E as a m e a n s o f securing the stability o f an empire.

38

13. C o n q u e r e d kings were e x p e c t e d to b r i n g their nations' practices and attitudes into c o n f o r m i t y with the values o f the empire into w h i c h t h e y h a d b e e n placed. Indeed, their right to remain as (vassal) kings de­ p e n d e d o n their c o n f o r m i t y with the empire, especially in the provision 39

o f tribute, tax, a n d t o l l , but also in supplying slaves, soldiers, ships, and 36. So in his exploits the Ugaritic King Keret is depicted as a dependent client of El, tenderly watched over by the top god: "And in his dream El descends / In his vision the Father of Mankind / And he approaches asking Keret / 'What is wrong with Keret that he weeps? / the beloved child of El that he cries? / Is it a kingship like Bull, his father's he desires? / Or authority like the Father of Mankind?'" (Keret epic, A 34-43; ANET 143; cf. COS 1.102). So, also, for example, from the Hammurabi prologue:"[Anum and Enlil] called Babylon by its exalted name, made it supreme in the world..." (lines 18-19); "the king who made the four quarters of the world subservient, the favorite of [the goddess] Inanna am I" (lines 10-12); "When Marduk [patron god of Babylon] commissioned me to guide the people..." (lines 15-16); and from the epilogue: "I, Hammurabi, the perfect king, was not careless or neglectful of the black-headed people, whom Enlil had pre­ sented to me ..." (lines 11-15); "With the mighty weapon that Zababa and Inanna en­ trusted to me, with the insight that Enki [god of wisdom] allotted to me, with the ability that Marduk gave me, I rooted out the enemy above and below.. ." (lines 26-30). 37. A document usually referred to as "The Sins of Nabu-suma-iskun'' "depicts the eighth-century reign of Nabu-suma-iskun of Babylon as a series of increasingly unwise and impious acts against the state and the gods." Most notably: "he stopped going to war ..." (Sparks, Ancient Texts, 373). 38. Note that already in Hammurabi's day (late eighteenth century BCE) the threat of exile was used effectively against an emperor's foes (Hammurabi Code epilogue, reverse xxvi:75 threatens against any king who tries to subvert Hammurabi's law "the dispersion of his people" and reverse xxviii:22-23 says "may they carry him away to lands hostile to him"). 39. Giving of tribute to an emperor is portrayed as a great privilege in, for example, an inscription describing the Egyptian vizier Rekhmere's reception of tribute from lead­ ers in Crete on behalf of Thutmosis III, accompanying the scene in which it is depicted, on a wall painting in Thebes: "Coming in peace by the chieftains of Crete and the is­ lands in the midst of the sea, bowing down, bending the head, because of the might of His Majesty, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkheferre [prenomen of Thutmosis], granted life eternally, because they hear of his victories over all countries; their trib-

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

various o t h e r g o o d s and services t o the empire, and emulation o f the empires practices.

40

T H E M E N T A L I T Y OF E M P I R E IN T H E OLD T E S T A M E N T In light o f the uniqueness o f o u t l o o k o f the O l d Testament in so m a n y areas o f life as c o m p a r e d to its s u r r o u n d i n g cultures,

41

it should

not

prove surprising i f we were to find that the O l d Testament does n o t re­ flect the s a m e sort o f mentality about empire that is so widely manifest elsewhere in the ancient N e a r E a s t .

42

In fact, a negative attitude toward

empires s e e m s to b e the case: the O l d Testament does n o t endorse either empires o r imperialism, a n d actually has a considerable a m o u n t to say against t h e m . Is it therefore w r o n g t o speak o f the "Empire o f Saul" o r the "Empire o f David" o r the " E m p i r e o f S o l o m o n " as is c o m m o n l y done? N o t n e c e s ­ sarily. I f o n e defines "empire" in a m o d e r n way, using, for example, M o t y l s categories,

43

these three kings (and o t h e r Israelite o r Judean kings, to a

lesser degree) c o u l d b e u n d e r s t o o d to have reigned over a small "con­ tinuous" empire, that is, a grouping o f contiguous territories that m i g h t

ute on their backs, in quest of being given the breath of life, through desire of being loyal subjects of His Majesty, so that his might may protect them" (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 233, translation modified). 40. When Antiochus IV put a statue of Zeus in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple, he was doing what he thought was his right and duty and the right and duty of the Jews to accept. Ahaz's building of an Assyrian-style altar at Jerusalem as a replacement for the Solomonic altar is given in the Old Testament as evidence of his monumental corruption religiously, but from his empire-cultivating point of view it was presumably an improvement modeled on the latest and best that had been imported to Damascus by the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kgs 16:10-18). Zephaniahs mention of the "princes and the king's sons and all those clad in foreign attire" (Zeph 1:8) reflects the easy acceptance of empire fashion by those who should have been resisting it. 41. See, e.g., Wright, Old Testament against Its Environment. 42. The perspective of this paper is that there is a consistent, univocal Old Testament theology and that therefore various Old Testament passages from various genres and loci, if handled carefully and responsibly, can be adduced in support of a systematic analysis of an Old Testament theme such as empire. Those who take the position that the Old Testament contains a variety of different and conflicting theologies might ap­ proach the problem of deciding what the Old Testament says about empire in quite a different way, of course. 43. These are: continuous (all territories contiguous on land), discontinuous (ruled territories not adjacent to the core nation, whether overseas or just elsewhere on land), and hybrid (a combination of these two).

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

have o t h e r w i s e w a n t e d to b e i n d e p e n d e n t o f o n e a n o t h e r (as Israel a n d Judah b e c a m e after S o l o m o n s death)—areas united b y force o f c o n q u e s t (via S a u l s partially successful attempts a n d D a v i d s r e m a r k a b l y success­ ful c a m p a i g n s ) a n d ruled f r o m a central capital (eventually Jerusalem, captured for j u s t such a purpose b y D a v i d ) . This is n o t t h e s a m e thing as a typical ancient N e a r E a s t e r n empire, however. O n e difference m a y b e seen in h o w t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t views t h e territory that D a v i d c o n q u e r e d as o p p o s e d to h o w an e m p i r e s terri­ t o r y was usually viewed in the non-Israelite a n c i e n t N e a r East. T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t does n o t see t h e k i n g d o m o f Israel at its height u n d e r D a v i d as territory m a d e up (again in M o t y l s t e r m s ) o f a c o r e a n d a p e r i p h e r y (a c o r e nation w h o s e k i n g initiates t h e c o n q u e s t o f an empire, a n d t h e periphery, various lands a n d their m o n a r c h s that h e defeats and subju­ gates t o create t h e e m p i r e ) , b u t rather as t h e inherited

territory o f a single

people that was specially c h o s e n m a n y centuries in advance to inhabit it. Additionally, t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t sees t h e united k i n g d o m o f Israel as l o c a t e d in a place that has precisely defined b o u n d a r i e s , established n o t b y trial a n d error in wars o f c o n q u e s t o r b y either divine o r h u m a n a m b i t i o n , b u t b y a divine plan revealed v e r y early o n in the process, a n d b r o u g h t t o fruition b y t h e importation

o f a population that h a d n o t b e e n

there before—essentially t h e exact opposite o f the deportations

that were

usually e m p l o y e d b y e m p e r o r s to help establish c o n t r o l over c o n q u e r e d territories in typical empire-building. Part o f t h e challenge o f deciding w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t views t h e c o n c e p t o f "empire" in any particular way is t h e fact that t h e Old T e s t a m e n t does n o t have a v o c a b u l a r y dedicated to designating ' empire."

44

M o s t m o d e r n English translations o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t e m ­

ploy t h e w o r d "empire" sparingly, i f at all, and d o so, in fact, s o m e w h a t subjectively. E v e n i f we b r i n g in t h e L X X a n d its t e r m s β α σ ι λ ε ί α and κύριε ία (as close as t h e L X X gets to rendering "empire" b y a single word) we are still n o further ahead: "empire" is found t o b e rendered b y c i r c u m ­ l o c u t i o n s at best, a n d it c a n b e argued that there is n o t e r m , individual or c o m p o u n d , in either the H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c v o c a b u l a r y o f t h e O l d

44. Words rendered as "empire" in sample versions: Esth 1:20 ΠΏ^Ώ KJV/NKJV; Esth 4:11 ^ Ώ Π ΓήΓΊΏ [LXX Β: βασιλεία] Esth 10:1 p K P I NIV/TNIV; Jer 34:1 p N niD'pOO NIV/TNIV; Dan 11:2 *?3Π NASB; Dan 11:3 V d ? 0 [LXX Β: κυριεία]; Dan 11:4 ΓϊΏ^ (twice) NIV/TNIV; ESV, none; Youngs Literal, none; RSV/NRSV, none.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

T e s t a m e n t that requires

4

translation into English as empire." Certainly,

we c a n n o t take the approach that a word is the s a m e thing as a c o n c e p t , and it is certainly the concept

o f empire in the Old Testament that we are

seeking to analyze. But the m e r e paucity o f vocabulary is at least a clue to the O l d T e s t a m e n t s own unwillingness to "dignify" the c o n c e p t with unequivocal, dedicated vocabulary.

45

The general O l d Testament perspective on empires m a y b e s u m m a ­ rized as follows: S i n c e G o d wants to save, and since G o d alone can save, he will always and unalterably o p p o s e h u m a n inventions that c a n n o t save, from idols to empires. N o single verse o f the Old Testament says as m u c h , o f course, but what the O l d Testament does say on the matter, via the sorts o f passages adduced in the following b r i e f survey, adds up to such a c o n c l u s i o n .

46

A starting point for our survey might b e D e u t 32:8: " W h e n the M o s t High gave t h e nations their inheritance, when he divided all m a n k i n d , h e set up b o u n d a r i e s for the peoples according to the n u m b e r o f the children o f Israel." T h e c o n t e x t o f this statement is an early ( M o s a i c ) p o ­ etic covenant lawsuit {rib) in which Israel is warned not to disobey G o d s creation and covenant standards, and the nations o f the earth are also w a r n e d that t h e y must not do so, especially in c o n n e c t i o n with trying to subjugate Israel, Yahweh s special inheritance. T h e point o f the verse is that G o d from the b e g i n n i n g established national b o u n d a r i e s as a firm divine i n h e r i t a n c e in such a way that n o nation could properly get so big in territory that it could justify c o n q u e r i n g Israel out o f s o m e sort o f n o t i o n o f "manifest destiny" (right o f empire). D e u t e r o n o m y 3 2 : 8 is, in 45. I am not here endorsing anything like a Whorfian hypothesis about vocabulary (the idea of the late Benjamin Whorf that vocabulary specificity signals perceptual specificity, so that if a language lacks a separate, dedicated word for something, speakers of that language are probably not clearly aware of that thing). Nor do I think that the lack of individual words for "empire" in the Hebrew or Aramaic of the Old Testament stems automatically from the "negative" view of the Old Testament toward empire: it may be noted that a very large number of negative concepts (sin, murder, treachery, etc.) do have specific vocabulary words that attach to them in the Old Testament. Our point is simply that any writer or group of writers can refuse to "dignify" a concept by referring to it with one or more "harmless" or "neutral" vocabulary words as a conscious and intentional way of reminding the reader that the concept is foreign to the outlook of the writer(s). 46. These sample passages are from after David's time as well as before David s time, and it might be argued that only passages from before his time should be adduced. Such a requirement would be appropriate if it could be proved that the view of empire in the Old Testament evolves over time, but I see no evidence of that.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

o t h e r words, a parade example o f the O l d Testament anti-imperialistic outlook. A further insight into the O l d Testament s view o n empire c o m e s from Isa 1 0 : 5 - 1 4 (the full c o n t e x t is actually even b r o a d e r ) , whi ch reads: "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation [Israel, deserving to be punished], I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations. Are not my commanders all kings?' he says . . . As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols, kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?"' When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says: 'By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings. As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries ..."' Assyria is here portrayed as displaying the mentality o f empire, a n d G o d is clearly not impressed o r amused, and certainly n o t in agreement. H e will destroy t h e m , o n c e h e has used t h e m to do his will against his m o r ­ ally wayward p e o p l e .

47

F r o m the O l d Testament perspective, the success o f any empire can b e o n l y temporary. Pagan i m p e r i a l i s m m a y serve G o d s purposes by teaching a lesson to disobedient nations, but G o d allows n o nation s empire to endure for long, since it is the k i n g d o m o f his o w n people that h e ultimately will shepherd into eternal triumph. M e a n w h i l e , an empire m a y t h i n k itself t o have achieved greatness, even t h o u g h its achieve­ m e n t s are n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the o u t c o m e o f divine manipulation. F o r example, Jer 2 8 : 1 4 : 47. Abandoning Israel to a foreign conqueror is a standard Mosaic Covenant curse. Cf. Lev 26:17,"Those who hate you will rule over you"; Deut 28:33," .. nothing but cruel oppression all your days ..."; 28:48, "You will serve the enemies Yahweh sends against you; he will put an iron yoke on your neck"

3i

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals." This m i g h t s e e m virtually akin to M a r d u k s p u r p o r t e d sponsorship o f B a b y l o n in n e o - B a b y l o n i a n theology, but it is not. It is merely Yahwehs use o f B a b y l o n as a convenient tool, after which Babylon s "seventy years" (Jer 2 5 : 1 2 ; 2 9 : 1 0 ) will c o n c l u d e and that nation will perish from the world s c e n e , as J e r e m i a h was also inspired to a n n o u n c e : Announce and proclaim among the nations . . . "Babylon will be captured; Bel will be put to shame, Marduk filled with t e r r o r . . . A nation from the north will attack her and lay waste her land. No one will live in i t . . . For I will stir up and bring against Babylon an alliance of great nations from the land of the north. They will take up their positions against her, and from the north she will be captured So Babylonia will be plundered; all who plunder her will have theirfill,"declares the LORD She will be the least of the nations—a wilderness, a dry land, a desert. Because of the LORDS anger she will not be inhabited but will be completely desolate. All who pass Babylon will be horrified and scoff because of all her wounds . . . Therefore this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "I will punish the king of Babylon and his land as I punished the king of Assyria." (Jer 50:2—51:18) Z e c h a r i a h s vision o f the four h o r n s ( Z e c h 1 : 1 8 - 2 1 ) is a cheerful, simple vision o f G o d s control over empires that had threatened

Judah

historically (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia). T h e prophet, in a typical unfolding (progressive) vision, first sees four horns, and t h e n gradually understands that these are atop s o m e cattle that farm h a n d s ( N I V in­ correctly, "craftsmen") can easily s h o o b a c k ( N I V incorrectly, "terrify . . . t h r o w down") to their p a d d o c k s .

48

Then I looked up—and there before me were four horns! I asked the angel who was speaking to me, "What are these?" He an­ swered me, "These are the horns that scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem." Then the LORD showed me four craftsmen. I asked, "What are these coming to do?" He answered, "These are the horns that scattered Judah so that no one could raise his head, but the craftsmen have come to terrify them and throw down

48. On the translation, see my forthcoming Micah-Malachi.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

these horns of the nations who lifted up their horns against the land of Judah to scatter its people." The point is that n o matter h o w m u c h empires m a y s e e m at o n e point o r a n o t h e r in t i m e to have unstoppable c o n t r o l over various na­ tions u n d e r their d o m i n a t i o n , in G o d s plan they are as simple to get rid o f as cows that have b r o k e n t h r o u g h a fence a n d n e e d to b e herded b a c k h o m e . E m p i r e s are like that from the O l d T e s t a m e n t point o f view: nations grown t o o big for their britches, powerful beasts to those w h o m they terrify, but merely big, stupid, out-of-bounds animals t o G o d , w h o can put t h e m in their place as and w h e n h e c h o o s e s . D a n i e l 7 records the vision o f four beasts symbolizing four c o m i n g kingdoms,

49

t h e fourth o f w h i c h will b e the ultimate in imperialism. T h e

following excerpt is generally s u m m a t i o n a l o f the message o f that great vision. He gave me this explanation: "The fourth beast is a fourth king­ dom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." (Dan 7:23-27) H e r e the death knell o f earthly empires is sounded. O n l y the king­ d o m o f the M o s t H i g h c a n b e allowed to last forever. Every o t h e r king­ d o m , n o matter h o w extensive, powerful, and impressive, must ultimately give way to G o d s . Every o t h e r ruler, n o matter h o w feared or admired, must ultimately b o w the k n e e to the o n l y eternal K i n g .

50

49. Daniels vision took place at the end of the Babylonian Empire. Although it is far outside the scope of this paper, I would contend (against a fairly widespread scholarly consensus) that a convincing case may be made for the identification of these king­ doms as, respectively, Persia, Greece, and Rome, rather than Persia, Greece, and the Seleucids. 50. Warnings against reliance on other empires implies that there is something

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Part o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t s o u t l o o k in hostility to empires and i m p e r i a l i s m is found in t h e c o n c e p t o f the " D a y o f the Lord." S o m e w h a t ironically, this c o n c e p t actually owes its idiomatic familiarity to t h e fact o f empire in the ancient Near East. T h e origin o f t h e c o n c e p t m a y b e found in t h e ancient idea that a truly great sovereign could vanquish his e n e m i e s in a single day. Such a great k i n g would win n o t j u s t battles

in

a day, but entire wars o f conquest "in a day." Building o n this well-doc­ u m e n t e d n o t i o n from the ancient world,

51

the O l d Testament prophets

were inspired to assert that Yahweh, sovereign over all earthly sovereigns, could obviously dispatch not j u s t any given foe, but all foes at o n c e in a single day. Therefore the D a y o f Yahweh would b e a day in whi ch his special intervention o n the h u m a n s c e n e would set right all wrongs and b r i n g to j u d g m e n t all nations. As Joel, for example, puts it, Yahweh c a n gather all nations at o n c e in the "Valley o f D e c i s i o n " and deal with t h e m all at o n c e as i f t h e y were simply a group o f defendants in s o m e sort o f c r i m e , b e i n g herded to c o u r t and j u d g e d openly for their c r i m e s , their conviction easily o b t a i n e d .

52

O n this analogy, a variety o f o t h e r O l d Testament prophets de­ scribe t h e " D a y o f t h e Lord" as any day o f special divine intervention o n a grand scale, including the conquest o f Judah by the B a b y l o n i a n s (part, o f course, o f a massive empire c o n q u e s t o f m a n y n a t i o n s ) , and also o f the first c o m i n g o f Christ as a D a y o f Yahweh. Appropriately, t h e N e w Testament describes the s e c o n d c o m i n g o f Christ as a D a y o f the L o r d as well, since it fits the criteria: a t i m e o f decisive divine intervention in h u m a n history to c o r r e c t h u m a n error and establish t h e will o f G o d 53

widely. T h e size and s c o p e o f t h e biblical c o n c e p t o f t h e D a y o f Yahweh, then, tends to crowd out any h u m a n reliance u p o n o r awe at h u m a n empires. T h e y are n o t h i n g before Yahweh, because his day o f c o n q u e s t is so m u c h greater than and so o p p o s e d to and destructive o f any h u m a n sovereigns puny-by-comparison day o f conquest.

inherently wrong if Gods people welcome the legitimacy of those empires. Cf. Isa 30:1-5; 31:1-9; Jer 46:25; 2 Kgs 18:21; 2 Chr 16:8; et al. 51. See Stuart, "The Sovereigns Day of Conquest," and the examples therein of the "victory in a single day" idea. Von Rad also argues that the "Day of the Lord" had its origin in the concept of Holy War, in Yahweh's subjugation of his foes on behalf of his people (von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:17 etc.). 52. Joel 3:9-14. 53. 1 Thess 5:2-9; cf. 2 Pet 3:10; 1 Cor 5:5; et al.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

A n o t h e r way to say this is to point out that t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t envisions that all earthly empires o f any sort will eventually b e destroyed by divine fiat so that t h e age o f the n e w creation can b e characterized b y a d e m o c r a t i z e d access t o Yahweh a n d his blessing via conversion to t h e faith o n c e h o u s e d provisionally o n l y in Israel:

54

In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance." (Isa 19:24-25) In this happy scenario, would-be e m p e r o r s n e e d n o t apply. T h e y will have n o c h a n c e to exercise their lust for d o m i n a n c e over others and o t h ­ ers' territory. E m p i r e s will b e g o n e forever, supplanted b y a whole n e w order that obviates b o t h their motives a n d m e t h o d s . E m p i r e s are created b y warfare, a n d from a h u m a n p o i n t o f view, t h e greater a k i n g s ability to lead a people in war successfully, t h e greater his l i k e l i h o o d o f p r o d u c i n g an empire. D a v i d was, o f course, a great k i n g in t e r m s o f his ability to lead people in war. B u t n o t all wars—or all types o f warfare—are alike. W h e n D a v i d h a d his successes in war, it was n o t b e c a u s e h e was a skilled m i l i t a r y tactician o r strategist in t h e m a n n e r o f any skilled m i l i t a r y leader in t h e a n c i e n t N e a r East. D a v i d s u c c e e d e d b e c a u s e h e c o n s c i o u s l y fought H o l y War, a rather special type o f warfare with a v e r y special purpose. The Israelite e n c o u n t e r with t h e Amalekites at R e p h i d i m repre­ sents an early e x a m p l e o f O l d T e s t a m e n t H o l y War, an instance that an­ ticipates t h e fuller delineation o f t h e c o n c e p t in later texts. T h e principles o f H o l y W a r are codified in D e u t 2 0 : 1 - 2 0 , but i m p o r t a n t examples a n d supplemental aspects o f the c o n c e p t are found in m a n y locations. H o l y W a r m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d b y twelve p r o p o s i t i o n s :

55

1. N o standing a r m y was allowed. This m e a n t that t h e battles were fought by amateurs—volunteers—who h a d to d e p e n d o n G o d for their success, a n d c o u l d n o t b o a s t in their o w n a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o r c l a i m special m i l i ­ t a r y prowess. A potential soldier was allowed—indeed invited—to give

54. As implied, e.g., in Isa 2:4; 14:1-2,18; 29:7-8; 52:10; Jer 3:17; 25:31; et al. 55. The summary of Holy War given here follows closely a summary that I have published recently in Stuart, Exodus, 395-97.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

virtually any e x c u s e for not serving in a b a t t l e ,

56

b e c a u s e G o d wanted

o n l y t h o s e w h o desired t o b e used b y h i m as his w a r r i o r s .

57

2. N o pay for soldiers was permitted. T h e entirely volunteer a r m y c o u l d n o t seek personal reward b y m e a n s o f financial c o m p e n s a t i o n for their efforts. Instead, t h e y were to u n d e r s t a n d themselves as r e s p o n d i n g to G o d s call and not to any o t h e r incentives. T h e y were g o i n g t o war as his agents o f justice, not as people seeking their o w n advantage. 3. N o personal spoil/plunder could b e taken. It was the standard p r a c t i c e in the ancient world for warriors to b e attracted b y the p r o m i s e o f spoil/ plunder u p o n successfully c o n q u e r i n g an enemy. T h e rule outside Israel was that a soldier could keep anything he could take from the e n e m y ( o r the e n e m y city o r land) and c a r r y off.

58

4 . H o l y W a r c o u l d b e fought o n l y for the conquest o r defense o f the p r o m i s e d land. Israel had n o right t o any o t h e r land, o r t o warfare for any o t h e r purpose. Thus, as we shall discuss in m o r e detail below, w h e n D a v i d tried t o build an empire a n d take a census in preparation for the wars that would b e required to e x t e n d that empire b e y o n d the b o u n d a r ­ ies o f t h e p r o m i s e d land, h e a n d Israel (the people h a d for the m o s t part willingly participated) were severely punished (2 S a m 2 4 : 1 - 1 7 ) .

5 9

56. Accordingly, Deut 20:5-8 requires that the military leaders must openly invite those who may not have wanted to assert an excuse on their own behalf to go home and not participate in the battle, on the basis of almost any sort of prior commitment, samples of which are announced to the assembled troops. 57. Davids Philistine mercenaries were, of course, an exception to the Holy War provisions and thus, unfortunately, a violation of the principles of Holy War. Davids most egregious violation of the Holy War rules took place as described in 2 Sam 24 (see below on point 4). 58. See, e.g., the foiled expectation described in Deborahs Song, Judg 5:28-30, or the description of joy attending the division of spoils in Isa 9:3. 59. One might then ask how the battle at Rephidim, which was outside of the con­ fines of the promised land of Canaan, could be considered properly an instance of Holy War. The answer is that just as despoiling the Egyptians (3:21-22; 12:36) represented a first step in making it possible for the Israelites to get to the promised land, and the de­ feat of Pharaohs army at the Red Sea represented a second step in the same progression, defeating the Amalekites was simply a third step in the process of getting to Canaan. Had Israel not been able to prevail against Amalek, the conquest and defense of the promised land would have been mooted.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

5. O n l y at Yahwehs call could Holy W a r b e launched. T h e r e was n o o p ­ portunity to h o l d a national referendum o r for a king o r any o t h e r per­ son, including the High Priest, t o declare H o l y War. G o d alone was t h e arbiter o f w h e n such a war would b e undertaken, i f at all, a n d a true H o l y War was thus fought strictly and o n l y at his c a l l .

60

6. Solely t h r o u g h a prophet c o u l d that divine call c o m e . Prophets were spokespersons for G o d , w h o did n o t m a k e up their messages but said what G o d h a d placed in their m i n d s to say. Neither priest n o r king n o r nobles n o r tribal leaders n o r any o t h e r authorities except a prophet were in a position t o declare a Holy War. M o s e s was, o f course, at all t i m e s a prophet.

61

7. Yahweh does the real fighting in H o l y War, b e c a u s e the war is always his. O n the c o s m i c scale, H o l y W a r is a war to defeat Satan a n d his angels, w h o s e influence over earthly matters is invariably harmful. Israel was simply his h u m a n , earthly delegate to represent Yahwehs will, but h e did the real fighting, with the Israelite people m o r e o r less c o n s c i o u s that t h e y w e r e ' going t h r o u g h the m o t i o n s . "

62

8. H o l y W a r was a religious undertaking, involving fasting, abstinence from sex, a n d / o r o t h e r forms o f self-denial.

63

It was an act o f o b e d i e n c e

to G o d a n d n o t o f national pride o r military strategy. 9. A goal o f H o l y W a r was the total annihilation o f an evil culture (the enemy, the C a n a a n i t e s ) . This is b a s e d o n G e n 1 5 : 1 2 - 1 6 , in w h i c h G o d 60. When the Israelitesfirstdecided to try to fight the Canaanites on their own, they lost miserably, because the battle had not been called by Yahweh, but was, rather, fought against his will (Num 14:41-45). 61. Indeed, Moses is the paradigm prophet (Deut 18:15-22) whose ministry sets the standards for all subsequent prophets. 62. This is reflected, for example, in Judg 5:20 ("from the heavens the stars fought") and in Pauls summation of our proper focus in our part of the ongoing Holy War (Eph 6:12, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms"). The parade example of Israels going through the motions of war in cognizance of the fact that the Lord actually does the fighting for them is found in Joshua 6, where Jericho falls after symbolic, rather than actual, warfare. 63. On fasting in Holy War, see 1 Sam 21:1-6, where David and his men are en­ gaged in Holy War and therefore are very hungry from their repeated fasting; or 1 Sam 14:24-45, a lengthy story resulting from Saul's oath requiring fasting during a campaign against the Philistines. On abstinence from sex, see 1 Sam 21:4-5 and 2 Sam 11:11-13.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

reveals t o A b r a h a m the plan o f c o n q u e s t as a m e a n s o f eliminating the "Amorites" ( C a n a a n i t e s ) o n c e their progressively evil culture h a d b e ­ c o m e so corrupt that G o d could do n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t o e x t e r m i n a t e it. T h e total annihilation o f the e n e m y and all that m i g h t have b e e n taken as plunder followed logically from this c o m m i t m e n t .

64

10. T h e violator o f the rules o f Holy W a r b e c o m e s an enemy. T h o s e w h o violate the rules, such as b y n o t practicing the required self denial o r the required disdain for spoils o r t h e like, must n o r m a l l y b e punished with death, just as death is t h e due o f t h e e n e m y b e i n g fought against.

65

11. E x c e p t i o n s and mutations were possible, especially in t h e case o f c o m b a t with t h o s e w h o were n o t original inhabitants o f the p r o m i s e d land, and therefore w h o were not automatically to b e e x t e r m i n a t e d .

66

Accordingly, the Amalekites as n o n - i n h a b i t a n t s o f the p r o m i s e d land, are added to the list o f those w h o must b e wiped out b y special divine decree in E x o d 17:14, b e c a u s e otherwise the Israelites might n o t have b e e n certain as to whether t o spare A m a l e k i t e lives o r not. 12. Decisive, rapid victory characterized faithful H o l y War. It was the e x p e c t a t i o n that i f G o d was b e h i n d a war, that war would essentially b e c o n c l u d e d in a day, the " D a y o f Yahweh" o r " D a y o f the Lord." In the ancient world, there is a s o m e w h a t fuzzy distinction b e t w e e n a "battle" and a "war," b e c a u s e each military e n c o u n t e r with each n e w e t h n i c group o r city state could b e considered either a separate war o r a separate battle within a protracted war o f conquest. Nevertheless, G o d was regarded as capable o f vanquishing all his foes in a single day.

67

That M o s e s should

anticipate a battle against the Amalekites in a single day is consistent with this understanding o f Holy War.

64. For an example, see Josh 6:17-19,21. 65. On death for the person who breaks the fast, see 1 Sam 14:43-44; on death for the person taking plunder/spoil, see Josh 7:24-26. 66. See Deut 20:10-15; Josh 8:2,27. 67. See Stuart, "The Sovereigns Day of Conquest," which argues that the origin of the phrase "the Day of the Lord" is to be found in the ancient Near Eastern notion that a truly great sovereign could win a war in a day, vanquishing all his foes and establishing full justice and order throughout his realm. Yahweh is the paramount great sovereign. His day of intervention, when it would come, would represent a decisive divine inter­ vention in human history—joyously welcome to his allies and horrendously deadly for his foes.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

As we have already noted, there is a basic and n e c e s s a r y relation­ ship b e t w e e n empire a n d war: empires are gained m a i n l y b y warfare. Even w h e r e a given nation o r group o f nations m a y agree "voluntarily" to submit to the d o m i n a t i o n o f an empire, this happens not b e c a u s e o f their desire for s o m e sort o f c o m m o n w e a l t h o r mutually-beneficial relationship with the empire to which t h e y submit, but b e c a u s e o f the threat o f destruction o f all that t h e y h o l d dear via warfare i f t h e y do not submit. W i t h o u t war a n d its threat o f devastation, empires in the ancient Near East c o u l d not have b e e n built. D a v i d u n d e r s t o o d war a n d what it c o u l d accomplish. H e was an expert at it. T h e implications o f that expertise for D a v i d s actions as described in 2 Samuel 2 4 / 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 are many, and it is to these implications a n d D a v i d s a c t i o n s that we n o w turn.

DAVID'S COSTLY FLIRTATION W I T H EMPIRE-BUILDING S e c o n d S a m u e l 2 4 a n d its parallel in 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 tell the s t o r y

68

of

David's instigating an extensive census o f the fighting m e n t h r o u g h o u t Israel. T h e r e are challenges to understanding exactly at what point in his career D a v i d u n d e r t o o k to d e m a n d this c e n s u s , that it was s o m e t i m e after

70

69

but it would appear

h e h a d subdued all that c o u l d b e considered

68. It may be regarded, indeed, as a single story, easily and responsibly harmonized, with most wording shared verbatim and those portions that differ being explained oc­ casionally by textual analysis and often by the different demands of the two different writers' literary programs for the benefit of their audiences. I do not here offer an analy­ sis of the way I think the harmonization can be accomplished, because it has little effect on my discussion of Davids purposes and actions. The differences are generally well explained in Pratt, Chronicles, 167-76; and Gordon, Samuel, 316-22. 69. The placement of 2 Sam 24 within the structure of the "appendix" of 2 Samuel is part of a chiastic arrangement in which several documents relevant to David s reign are collected and arranged symmetrically, but not necessarily chronologically, and not necessarily reflective of the end of his reign. Most of the commentaries discuss the structure well, and point out that the integrity of the account in 2 Sam 24 is not threat­ ened by its inclusion in the appendix. 70. According to 2 Sam 8:1-13//1 Chr 18:1-13, David had in fact dominated by warfare all the areas that fell within the boundaries of the promised land by a point relatively early in his reign, as well as neighboring states whose boundaries either en­ croached on the promised land or whose past behavior had demonstrated that they eyed territory within the promised land as desirable. The fact that Solomon was able to tell Hiram of Tyre, "The Lord my God has now given me rest all around; there is no enemy or crisis" (1 Kgs 5:4) suggests that David so well finalized his conquest that it lasted well into the next generation.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

the "traditional" b o u n d a r i e s o f the p r o m i s e d l a n d .

71

In instigating this

census, it would appear that David t o o k leave o f the traditional Israelite/ O l d Testament hostility toward e m p i r e and e m b r a c e d , for his own ends and via his own evolving values, the pagan N e a r Eastern m e n t a l i t y o f e m p i r e (2 S a m 2 4 in n o r m a l type, 1 C h r 2 1 in italics b e l o w ) : 1

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he in­ cited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 1

2

So the king said to Joab and the army commanders with him, "Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are." So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are!' 2

3

But Joab replied to the king, "May the LORD your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?" But Joab replied, "May the LORD multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lords subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?'' 3

4

The kings word, however, overruled Joab and the army com­ manders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel. The king's word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. 4

5

After crossing the Jordan, they camped near Aroer, south of the town in the gorge, and then went through Gad and on to Jazer. They went to Gilead and the region of Tahtim Hodshi, and on to Dan Jaan and around toward Sidon. Then they went toward the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites. Finally, they went on to Beersheba in the Negev of Judah. But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king's command was repulsive to him. This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel. 6

7

6

7

71. The outer extent of the promised land was defined for the Israelites by referring to such passages as Gen 15:18; Num 13:21; 34:1-12; Deut 2-3, esp. 3:12-17; Josh 13:2-5 and Josh 13-22. It clearly includes lands thereafter (and also before) occupied against the will of Yahweh by Philistines, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, etc.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

8

After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9

Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand. 5

Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. 10

David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fight­ ing men, and he said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Ο LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing." Then David said to God, "I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant I have done a very foolish thing." 8

11

Before David got up the next morning, the word of the LORD had come to Gad the prophet, Davids seer: The LORD said to Gad, Davids seer 9

y

12

"Go and tell David, 'This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.'" "Go and tell David, 'This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you!" 10

13

So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of flee­ ing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me." So Gad went to David and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: 'Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the LORD—-days of plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD ravaging every part of Israel! Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me!' 11

12

14

David said to Gad, "I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men." David said to Gad, "I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men!' 13

4i

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T 15

So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning un­ til the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. So the LORD sent a plague on Israel and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead. 14

16

When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand!' The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 75

16

David looked up and saw the angel of the LORD standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. 17

When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, "I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. David said to God, "Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. 17

This story, in two slightly different a c c o u n t s (as certainly m i g h t b e expected in light o f the C h r o n i c l e r s well-known special e m p h a s e s a n d different audience) m a y b e considered to raise several questions that deserve to b e addressed.

1. Did David

Understand

Authorization

Only for

the "Rules" of Holy War, Rules the Taking

and Holding

That

of the Promised

Included Land?

Indications are that h e did. In the past, as a military chieftain work­ ing closely with Saul and Jonathan, David had fought u n d e r Holy W a r standards. F o r example, o n the o c c a s i o n described in 1 S a m u e l 14, w h e n Jonathan ran afoul o f Holy W a r fasting regulations b e c a u s e h e was "out o f the loop" a n d unaware that Saul had p r o c l a i m e d a Holy War, Jonathan ate h o n e y against his father s decree and incurred the wrath o f Israel for so doing.

72

I f Saul was practicing H o l y War, it surely c a n n o t have b e e n

lost o n his c h i e f general, David.

72. 1 Sam 14:24-30.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

D a v i d also shows awareness o f H o l y W a r in his e n c o u n t e r with A h i m e l e c h , t h e priest at N o b .

73

In that story, D a v i d acknowledges that

he a n d his m e n "as usual" p r a c t i c e d H o l y War, as indicated b y his affir­ m a t i o n that t h e y did n o t engage in the pleasures o f t h e flesh (indicated via s y n e c d o c h e b y t h e clause " w o m e n have b e e n kept from us") while at war. This allows t h e high priest t o give h i m and his m e n the s h o w b r e a d to eat. N o t o n l y so, but D a v i d s h o w e d a regular attitude that h e k n e w that he a n d Israel with h i m were fighting u n d e r the leadership o f Yahweh and a c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o revealed standards o f e n g a g e m e n t w h e n e v e r t h e y fought. Even in his e n c o u n t e r with S h i m e i , h e k n e w that h e c o u l d n o t select o p p o n e n t s for slaughter b u t must go into battle o n l y against t h o s e p e r s o n s o r people w h o m G o d designated via a p r o p h e t .

74

At t h e v e r y

e n d o f his life, D a v i d reneged again o n this firm c o m m i t m e n t to a strict H o l y W a r attitude b y assigning over to S o l o m o n the goal o f taking care o f t h o s e w h o h a d m a d e themselves D a v i d s e n e m i e s ,

75

since during his

lifetime D a v i d did n o t feel authorized to do it. It m i g h t b e argued that D a v i d b r o k e the rules o f H o l y W a r b y hav­ ing Philistine (Kerethite, Pelethite a n d Gittite) m e r c e n a r i e s in his e m ­ 76

ploy as professional soldiers. However m u c h this m a y have represented a "stretching" o f t h e rules, these were his personal bodyguard, n o t t h e 77

a r m y o f I s r a e l . O t h e r w i s e David s e e m s to have u n d e r s t o o d and, usu­ ally, p r a c t i c e d systematically t h e H o l y W a r principle o f having an allvolunteer, n o n - s t a n d i n g army. It also w o u l d s e e m that the O l d T e s t a m e n t refers to D a v i d s reaching a p o i n t w h e n , although h e h a d n o t g o n e abroad to t r y to build an empire, h e h a d instead achieved t h e status o f c o n t r o l over all potential f o e s .

78

In

o t h e r words h e h a d c o n s c i o u s l y stopped wars o f c o n q u e s t b e c a u s e h e h a d r e a c h e d the limits o f the p r o m i s e d land. Thus he, as o f that t i m e at 73. 1 Sam 21:1-6. 74. 2 Sam 16:5-14. 75. 1 Kgs 2:5-9. This is one of several moral low points in Davids career. 76. See 2 Sam 15:18 and 2 Sam 8:18; 15:18; 20:7,22; 1 Kgs 1:38,44. This would not imply that he did not know the rules of Holy War, in any case. 77. This was somewhat in the same manner as the Swiss Guards protect the Pope to this day, a guard force of foreigners whose disinterest in the internal affairs of Israel would help them keep their loyalty to the king regardless of his policies as these might rile or affect the attitudes of native Israelites. 78. 2 Sam 8:1-13//1 Chr 18:1-13.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

least, had probably o b s e r v e d consistently t h e provision that H o l y W a r was permissible o n l y for t h e taking and holding o f t h e p r o m i s e d land.

2. Did David

Understand

the Implications

of a

Census?

T h e story o f 2 Samuel 2 4 / / 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 is the story o f a c e n s u s a n d its aftermath. W h i l e o n rare o c c a s i o n s in t h e ancient world there m a y have b e e n a p u r p o s e for taking a c e n s u s that fell outside o f either taxation o r preparation for war, these two purposes s e e m to b e the o n l y two that are actually found in the O l d T e s t a m e n t .

79

As M e n d e n h a l l has argued, t h e o n l y p u r p o s e for a census described as c o u n t i n g "fighting m e n " ("those w h o draw t h e sword"), as already in N u m b e r s 1 a n d 2 6 , is for war; Israel is overtly m e n t i o n e d in a n u m b e r o f contexts related to t h e exodus and c o n q u e s t o f C a n a a n as b e i n g specifi­ 80

cally organized for war. W h a t was t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e war for w h i c h the censuses o f N u m b e r s 1 and 2 6 were taken? It was, indeed, c o n q u e s t , tak­ ing s o m e b o d y else's territory away from t h e m . This is w h y t h e Israelites were c o u n t e d tribe b y tribe, and w h y t h e y are described as b e i n g orga­ nized as an army.

81

Israels a s s i g n m e n t was to enter territory where t h e y

had not before set f o o t

82

and destroy a native p o p u l a t i o n .

83

Warfare was necessary to a c c o m p l i s h this, but n o t j u s t any warfare: this was H o l y War, in w h i c h t h e Israelites fought symbolically as agents o f Yahwehs l o n g - d e m a n d e d j u s t i c e .

84

It is hard to i m a g i n e that David

would have b e e n unaware o f the nature o f the c o n q u e s t and o f the n a ­ ture, including the dangers, o f the censuses that initiated t h e gathering o f the troops in the days o f M o s e s for that conquest.

79. On census lists as virtually invariably for the purpose of taxation or war (and these two purposes only), see Sparks, Ancient Texts, 377-78, who mentions the exis­ tence of seventeen extant Assyrian census lists, and several others from Ugarit, Babylon, Egypt, and Mari. 80. Mendenhall, "Census Lists." 81. E.g., the Israelites marched out of Egypt "by their divisions" Exod 6:26; see also 7:4; 12:17,41; Num 1:3,52; 2:3 and other passages. 82. Deut 1:18,21; see also Gen 15:7; 28:4; Exod 23:30; Josh 1:3; et al. 83. Note how different this is from the usual idea of imperialism, which is to sub­ due people and put them to work for the empire. About the only people the Israelites were able, at least at first, to subdue from the native population of Canaan were the Gibeonites, who fooled the Israelites into allowing them to live as servants by pretend­ ing to be outsiders to Canaan (Joshua 9). 84. Gen 15:14,16.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

The potential for abuse in a census (namely, using a census to estab­ lish a standing a r m y ) carried with it a special penalty, as e n u m e r a t e d in E x o d u s . T h e p a y m e n t o f t h e r a n s o m m o n e y was a m e a n s o f forestalling such a penalty.

85

W h a t was the penalty? It was a plague—the danger o f

w h i c h J o a b surely k n e w from his words in 2 Samuel 2 4 / / 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 , a n d w h i c h D a v i d likewise surely k n e w .

3. Would

David

86

Have Had Any Reason an

to Desire

to

Establish

Empire?

M o n e y m a y have b e e n part o f t h e motivation, as it usually was in ancient imperialism. F o r s o m e t i m e , D a v i d h a d obviously b e e n eager to b e g i n a significant temple c o n s t r u c t i o n c a m p a i g n , w h i c h h e p r o p o s e d to G o d in 2 Samuel 8 .

87

B u t h o w would h e finance such a project? O n e generation

later, w h e n S o l o m o n u n d e r t o o k to c o m p l e t e what his father had initi­ ated, h e found t h e costs so crushing that h e ended up n o t only having to establish a forced-labor system to provide e n o u g h m a n p o w e r ,

88

but also

having to c e d e land to t h e general c o n t r a c t o r in order to t r y to cover the debt i n c u r r e d .

89

The a c c o u n t in 2 S a m u e l 2 4 / / 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 o f D a v i d s flirtation with empire-building m i g h t also b e seen to raise, implicitly at least, t h e question o f w h e t h e r o r n o t David thought that h e h a d yet achieved an empire in t h e c o u r s e o f his subduing t h e p r o m i s e d land. I would argue that h e did not—that h e would have u n d e r s t o o d his a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s prior t o that p o i n t as simply gaining t h e p r o m i s e d land, a n d n o t h i n g m o r e . Interestingly, there is n o evidence that in his prior a c c o m p l i s h ­ es. Exod 30:11-16. See Stuart, Exodus, 635-39. 86. Indeed, it can hardly be doubted that if David had been in any way fuzzy on the concept of the risk of taking a census, he was clear on it by the time Joab had finished explaining it to him in the conversation of which that account is surely a precis. 87. He had committed himself at that point, at least, to building a temple (which meant, in fact, a large temple complex where the united tribes of Israel could gather for worship of Yahweh). 88. 1 Kgs 4:6; 5:14; 9:15-22; 11:28 (?); 12:4. His entire labor system was so burden­ some that it was a central point in the rebellion of the northern tribes upon Solomons death. The text nowhere specifically links the forced labor system to temple construc­ tion, but it is hard to imagine that such a great project would avoid utilizing such an available labor force. 89. Solomons giving twenty towns to Hiram of Tyre, and Hiram's dissatisfaction with the payment (emphasizing all the more the huge cost of the temple) is described in 1 Kgs 9:10-14.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

merits he n e e d e d to take a census; everything points t o the fact that h e had relied o n a volunteer a r m y in classic H o l y W a r fashion (aside from the Philistine personal retinue m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ) . B u t t o go beyond

the

b o r d e r s o f the p r o m i s e d land? That apparently suggested to h i m quite vividly the n e e d to put together as large an a r m y as h e could, with w h i c h he could begin to e x p a n d b e y o n d Israels assigned and traditional borders. D o e s this m e a n that there is s o m e t h i n g w r o n g with a large king­ d o m , and that o n l y small k i n g d o m s are g o o d ? Here we find n o evidence in the O l d Testament for such an outlook. As far as can b e discerned, the O l d T e s t a m e n t says n o t h i n g either way about the desirability o f small k i n g d o m s as o p p o s e d to large k i n g d o m s . But a m e r e k i n g d o m (a single nation within a single recognized territory o f a people w h o see t h e m ­ selves as united) is not the s a m e thing as an empire ( a m a l g a m a t e d from a variety o f peripheral foreign nations subdued u n d e r the c o n t r o l o f and for the benefit o f a c o r e n a t i o n ) .

4. Is the Story of the Census

in 2 Samuel

Told in Such a Way That the Reader David

Wanted Understand

to Establish

24/71 Chronicles

Is Intended

an Empire—and

21

to Understand

Is the Reader

That Such a Lust for Empire

Purposely

Was a Major

That

Expected

to

Sin?

I t h i n k that the answer to each part o f this question is yes, and offer the following considerations from the details o f the story in support. First, c o n s i d e r the t i m i n g in D a v i d s career. T h e events take place at a point after David had in fact c o n q u e r e d the entire p r o m i s e d land and placed u n d e r his h e g e m o n y even surrounding nations in o n e form o f oversight or another. T h e nation is unified, the necessity for n e w and large-scale warfare to gain yet m o r e g r o u n d from e n e m y o c c u p i e r s is n o longer present, the a r m y c o m m a n d e r s such as J o a b are freer than they would otherwise have b e e n to undertake the planning for a war o f empire, including the taking o f a nationwide census, etc. All these point rather tellingly to a t i m e when D a v i d was free from prior military c o m ­ m i t m e n t s and could consider "going further."

90

T h e c e n s u s itself was, as

it were, ready and w a i t i n g — i f empire was the goal. 90. A necessary caution comes in the fact that chs. 21-24 of 2 Samuel constitute a special appendix, which, as we have already commented, appears to be structured chiastically and thematically rather than chronologically, and to contain materials from various times in the kings career.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

S e c o n d , there is t h e fact that D a v i d insisted o n using Joab and se­ n i o r m i l i t a r y c o m m a n d e r s to take t h e census. It is reasonable t o assume that h e w a n t e d t h e m to do t h e j o b n o t merely b e c a u s e t h e y would b e better at it t h a n subordinates, but for two o t h e r reasons: First, b e c a u s e their c o n f i d e n c e in t h e results was n e c e s s a r y i f the substantial c o m m i t ­ m e n t required for such a war o f c o n q u e s t o f empire was going to take place; a n d s e c o n d , b e c a u s e their "clout" w o u l d b e n e e d e d to c o n v i n c e the people b e i n g c o u n t e d to c o o p e r a t e . W h a t David was doing was m u c h bigger t h a n a routine c o u n t to establish o r c o n t i n u e "preparedness" for the h o l d i n g o f t h e p r o m i s e d land. The strenuous o b j e c t i o n o f J o a b

91

is certainly a m a j o r consideration

in the way that t h e story is told. Joab, D a v i d s nephew, h a d served as his military c o m m a n d e r / c h i e f o f staff for a very long t i m e , a n d h a d engi­ n e e r e d t h e s t u n n i n g c o m e b a c k against t h e far m o r e n u m e r o u s forces o f A b s a l o m in t h e battle o f t h e E p h r a i m i t e w o o d s .

92

His prior loyalty

to D a v i d h a d b e e n , as far as we c a n tell, absolute and unwavering.

93

For

h i m n o w to o b j e c t , a n d strongly, to what D a v i d has in m i n d suggests that there is s o m e t h i n g u n p r e c e d e n t e d in D a v i d s plan. It is n o t m o r e o f the s a m e , b u t represents a plan to go b e y o n d what Joab, a n d presumably anyone else, h a d "signed o n for" The n a r r a t o r also b r i n g s to o u r attention a tell-tale wording that Joab uses in his as-diplomatic-as-possible speech o f resistance to the k i n g s desire for the c o u n t o f t h e people: " M a y the L o r d multiply the 94

troops a h u n d r e d t i m e s over." B y using such a wording, J o a b obviously indicates that h e u n d e r s t a n d s that what D a v i d wants is n o t h i n g short o f a huge increase in t h e people u n d e r his rule. Joab indicates that h e would b e v e r y happy t o see a g e o m e t r i c increase in the population o f Israel—but that is obviously n o t what D a v i d wants, o r there would b e n o disagreement, n o resistance o n J o a b s part to D a v i d s plan. W h a t David wants is a huge increase, b u t n o t o f t h e Israelite population b y natural m e a n s d u r i n g his lifetime. Far m o r e likely, h e seeks a c o n q u e s t o f n o n 91. 2Sam24:3//l Chr21:3. 92. 2 Sam 18:1-17. 93. This included his willingness to assist David in dealing with Uriah as described in 2 Sam 11:14-25, in which there can be no doubt that Joab was a fully-informed and deliberate accomplice of David. 94. 2Sam24:3//l Chr21:3.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Israelite territories for the p u r p o s e o f establishing an e m p i r e that will 4

extend and a u g m e n t t h e I s r a e l i t e core." T h e r e is also a s e c o n d significant wording that J o a b uses: "will b r i n g guilt o n Israel." This wording, selected b y the n a r r a t o r t o include in the a c c o u n t , leaves n o doubt that J o a b finds the order o f t h e k i n g flatly i m ­ 4

moral. I f t h e guilt" was o n l y a potential guilt for n o t t a k i n g the census correctly, the use o f the p r e s c r i b e d r a n s o m p a y m e n t system would easily have put t o rest that anxiety. This is apparently s o m e t h i n g altogether dif­ ferent. J o a b fears that the nation will b e in trouble with its G o d i f the plan o f the k i n g is carried through. I m p e r i a l i s m requires n o t m e r e l y t h e will o f a k i n g but t h e c o m p l i a n c e o f a nation, w h o s e people m u s t b e willing to (in t h e case o f Israel) adopt a war footing b e y o n d that required for the preservation o f their o w n p r o m i s e d land i n h e r i t a n c e a n d a willingness to send large armies m a s s e d against resistant foreign n a t i o n s in order t o subdue t h o s e nations decisively. This would indeed b e a t h i n g p r o d u c i n g "guilt" and J o a b is portrayed as n o t wanting to start t h e process for fear o f the severe c o n s e q u e n c e s . A third tell-tale sign is found in J o a b s refusal to c o u n t Levi a n d B e n j a m i n in the census as d e s c r i b e d in the a c c o u n t found in 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 , "because the k i n g s c o m m a n d was repulsive to h i m . "

95

J o a b did in­

deed eventually b o w to t h e k i n g s insistent pressure, but n o t without dragging his feet o n part o f t h e c o u n t , s o that t w o tribes were o m i t t e d in the figures, a n d their n u m b e r s p r e s u m a b l y m e r e l y extrapolated from the 96

c o u n t s o t h e r w i s e found out b y actual survey. O u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f this refusal is that J o a b (and p r e s u m a b l y t h e military officials assisting h i m in the census) calculated that these two tribes represented the two places where t h e y would b e m o s t likely to e n c o u n t e r hostility: o n e theologi­ cal, the o t h e r political. H e surely k n e w that the Levites, guardians o f the d o c t r i n e s o f the M o s a i c covenant, would o p p o s e the c e n s u s in light o f its imperialistic purpose, b e c a u s e o f their shared k n o w l e d g e o f the teach­ 97

ings o f M o s e s . H e also surely k n e w that the tribe that h a d longest and m o r e ardently o p p o s e d D a v i d s rule, t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s , would likely put

95. 1 Chr21:6. 96. In other words, what Joab did to get around the especially delicate issue of counting the Levites and the Benjaminites was to guess intelligently at their numbers based on the other counts he had made and report them to the king, if at all, separately (as a harmonization of 1 Chr 21 with 2 Sam 24 would indicate). 97. As, e.g., in both in Exod 30:11-16 and Deut 20.

S T U A R T — D a v i d ' s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

up resistance t o his taking a census within their t e r r i t o r y — s o m e t h i n g t h e kings t h e y favored

98

would presumably never have done. Accordingly,

Joab a n d his officers astutely avoided going into B e n j a m i n i t e territory and simply presented t h e figures for that tribe as t h e y did for t h e Levites: via extrapolation from t h e c o u n t s t h e y were c o m i n g up with from o t h e r tribes w h o did allow t h e m access t o t h e people. The elaborate geography o f t h e census as described in 2 S a m u e l 24//1 Chronicles 2 1

9 9

is also surely intended to tell us that it was extraor­

dinary, a n d p e r h a p s even t o m a k e sure we get t h e point that it was taken against opposition. I n general, the taking o f narrative space t o present details in Scripture is usually an indication o f s o m e sort o f message b e ­ ing c o n v e y e d b y such a taking o f s p a c e .

100

In this instance, a census that

takes t h e b e t t e r part o f a year a n d that was pressed in every village a n d town, every region and area (where c o o p e r a t i o n was thought possible), is a census that seeks a certain k i n d o f result: the e n r o l l m e n t o f every possible soldier in light o f t h e massive military task ahead that establish­ ing a n e m p i r e would represent. The m a n n e r o f the respective narrators in introducing t h e c e n ­ sus s t o r y in 2 S a m u e l 2 4 and 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 is also significant. In t h e 2 S a m u e l a c c o u n t , t h e narrator b e g i n s b y saying, "Again, t h e anger o f t h e L O R D b u r n e d against Israel a n d h e incited D a v i d against t h e m . . . " T h e C h r o n i c l e r says essentially the s a m e thing, but in what m a y b e c o n s i d ­ ered an even m o r e d r a m a t i c f a s h i o n ,

101

"Satan rose up against Israel and

98. I.e., Saul and his sons, as summed up in the brief history of Saul versus David told from a Benjaminites point of view by Shimei in 2 Sam 16, esp. v. 8. 99. Most of the place names are omitted in the 1 Chr 21 account in a man­ ner consistent with the Chroniclers avoidance of virtually anything northern, as he writes for the southern audience just returning from the exile in 530 BCE. See Cross, "Reconstruction." 100. A parade example of this is the detail expended in Judges 19 about the hos­ pitality shown the Levite by his father-in-law as contrasted to the lack of hospitality shown him by the people of Gibeah, in whose city he had sought refuge precisely to receive Israelite hospitality as opposed to Jebusite hostility. Another example would be the detail given in Josh 7 about the use of the Urim and Thummim to determine who had taken spoils during the conquest of Jericho in the opening phase of the invasion of Canaan. Such detail makes clear that there was no doubt of divine disclosure in the use of the Urim and Thummim. In other words, Achan and his family were not put to death on the basis of somebody's casual detective work, but on the basis of a divinely-guided hand through multiple repetitions of the process of elimination, as elaborately recorded in the text. 101. The question may be raised: Is it more ominous to mention Satan as the proxi­ mate agent of inciting such a sinful act, or to mention that God himself was angry

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

incited David . . . " In t h e case o f the C h r o n i c l e r s wording, it is notewor­ thy that Satan is described as "standing" to i n c i t e .

102

This is the posture o f

the a c c u s e r in a c o u r t setting, as also found in Z e c h 3 : 1 - 2 , Ps 109:6, and s o m e w h a t less overtly in J o b 1 - 2 .

1 0 3

Editorial evaluations o f i m m o r a l i t y are so rare in the O l d Testament as to b e n o t e w o r t h y w h e n e v e r t h e y surface. Thus, for the C h r o n i c l e r to say in v. 7 o f his a c c o u n t , "This c o m m a n d was also evil in the sight o f G o d " is the equivalent o f placing high in bright n e o n for the reader the reality that the king s plan was o f great m o r a l c o n s e q u e n c e , a n d therefore of horrendous scope.

104

Further, the narrator in e a c h a c c o u n t m a k e s sure that the reader hears David s o w n full and frank admission o f the greatness o f his own guilt in seeking to establish a standing a r m y for imperialistic purposes in 2 S a m 2 4 : 1 0 / / 1 C h r 21:8, "David was c o n s c i e n c e - s t r i c k e n after he had c o u n t e d the fighting m e n , a n d h e said to the L O R D , "I have s i n n e d greatly in what I have d o n e . . . I have d o n e a very foolish thing."' Yet

105

a n o t h e r consideration o f the narratives clues to us that the

k i n g s plan was far m o r e t h a n anything m o d e s t in s c o p e is the interven­ tion o f a prophet at G o d s b e h e s t a n d as G o d s s p o k e s p e r s o n .

106

Since

u n d e r the rules o f H o l y W a r o n l y a p r o p h e t can a n n o u n c e war (because n o o n e else c a n b e trusted to s p e a k G o d s word directly a n d verbatim enough to incite the action that he knew would result in punishment? The Chroniclers wording could in fact be considered gentler, because it does not as overtly say that the census was itself a punishment brought about by the wrath of God. 102. Heb. bWlVT'bu ]UD "TQin, lit.,"and Satan stood up against Israel." 103. In the Job prologue, Satan and the other principalities and powers present themselves before Yahweh in his heavenly court, and are therefore surely standing, but not specifically as prosecutors against a defendant (accusers of a saint or of the saints), as is Satan in the other Old Testament contexts where he is named. The present pas­ sage is one of only four contexts in the Old Testament where Satan is mentioned by name (i.e., places where Heb. satan, functions as a proper noun/title in the Old Testament rather than as a common noun, "opponent/adversary"), the others being the prologue to Job (Job 1 and 2); Zech 3; and Ps 109. 104. The writer of 2 Samuel had already said essentially the same thing in v. 1 of his account. For another rare instance in the Former Prophets, see 2 Sam 11:27, "But the thing David had done displeased the LORD" (referring to Davids "great sin," the adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. 105. Paralleled to some extent in the open confession of David as to his guilt in 2 Sam 12:13. 106. Again parallel to 2 Sam 12:1-15 where the prophet Nathan is sent by God to announce to David the consequence of his sin.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly

Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

in such an i m p o r t a n t situation) it is fitting that the prophet G a d arrives to u n d e r s c o r e t h e divine disapproval a n d to offer the divine options for p u n i s h m e n t . In o t h e r words, it is n o t D a v i d o r anyone else in his retinue that c o m e s up with t h e idea o f t h e p u n i s h m e n t s as a p e n a n c e , b u t rather it is G o d h i m s e l f w h o insists that m a j o r p u n i s h m e n t m u s t b e m e t e d out for so m a j o r a sin. The appearance o f t h e Angel o f Yahweh to handle the p u n i s h m e n t is yet a n o t h e r indicator o f t h e severity o f what David has set in m o t i o n , particularly since here alone in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t the Angel o f Yahweh plays t h e role o f a dispenser o f p u n i s h m e n t against Israel. In all other places h e is a p r o t e c t o r a n d b e n e f a c t o r o f G o d s people a n d o n e w h o leads t h e m into b l e s s i n g .

107

Additionally, c o m p a r a b l e to t h e way that t h e threat via p u n i s h m e n t is huge (three t h r e e - t i m e p e r i o d options, administered in the event di­ rectly b y t h e Angel o f Yahweh, etc.) t h e removal o f the threat is h u g e D a v i d s b e i n g able to see t h e Angel o f Yahweh, his buying the threshing floor o f A r a u n a h a n d there building an altar in parallel to the altar stories o f A b r a h a m , Jacob, a n d M o s e s ; a n d m o s t especially G o d s sending down "fire f r o m h e a v e n "

108

to accept his sacrifice, an event o f great supernatu­

ral p o r t e n t parallel to t h e indication o f approval b y fire in t h e story o f Elijahs prayer contest with t h e prophets o f Baal in 1 K i n g s 18. To s u m up: it is h a r d to i m a g i n e that the Bible writer in either 2 S a m u e l 2 4 o r 1 C h r o n i c l e s 2 1 would o r c o u l d likely say m o r e b y way o f c o n d e m n a t i o n o f D a v i d s plan. W h a t else would have effectively added to t h e many, varied, overt indications o f what a serious violation o f G o d s c o v e n a n t this was? I f t h e writer h a d added anything else, h e o r she m i g h t well have risked offending t h e sensibilities o f the audience. It already b o r d e r s o n excess to say so m u c h b y way o f c o n d e m n a t i o n o f this census a n d its implicit purpose. A n d therefore, b y implication, were we not to go so far as to identify D a v i d s a c t i o n s as indicating a plan for an e m ­ pire we m i g h t b e reasonably a c c u s e d o f exercising m o r e caution than the r e m a r k a b l y special nature o f this a c c o u n t warrants. In light o f the u n p r e c e d e n t e d nature o f the c o n d e m n a t o r y elements w o r k e d into the narrative b y its respective writers, it would s e e m that we are e x p e c t e d 107. E.g., Gen 16:7-14; 22:11-18; Exod 3:2-12; et al. The Angel of the Lord opposes Balaam (Num 22:21-27) but that is for the benefit of the Israelites. 108. 1 Chr 21:25, more briefly rendered in 2 Sam 24:25 via the simple statement, "then the LORD answered prayer..."

5i

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

52

to see David s goal as u n p r e c e d e n t e d as well: an e x p a n s i o n o f Israel that would b e n o t h i n g short o f t h e creation o f an empire. Finally, n o t i c e that the story c o n c l u d e s in such a way as to sug­ gest an alternative to e m p i r e building—a goal different from empire that is in fact t h e " m o r e excellent way" that G o d intends for his people and therefore for David to pursue as their leader. D a v i d s attempt at empire was divinely t r u n c a t e d b e c a u s e o f the way that imperialism represented a defiance o f G o d s purposes for his c o v e n a n t people. In effect, G o d gra­ ciously diverted David s energies toward an altogether appropriate covenantally-approved direction, that o f establishing finally t h e centrality o f worship in Jerusalem in fulfillment o f t h e p r o m i s e s and predictions o f t h e central s a n c t u a r y in D e u t e r o n o m y 1 2 .

1 0 9

It is in this direction that

the story ends, with David chastened, t h e people s h o c k e d into o b e d i ­ ence, n o m o r e thought o f empire, a n d a grateful king and people focused o n worship o f the true G o d rather than violation o f o n e o f his basic c o n d i t i o n s o f their existence in t h e p r o m i s e d land.

Summary David k n e w b o t h the mentality o f t h e ancient N e a r East that was posi­ tive toward empire, and t h e "mentality" the O l d T e s t a m e n t — G o d s m e n ­ tality—that was hostile toward empire. After operating within the O l d Testament mentality in his early years o f c o m p l e t i n g the c o n q u e s t o f the p r o m i s e d land, he b e c a m e infatuated with the N e a r Eastern m e n t a l ­ ity o f e m p i r e and decided to give it a try. This produced disaster, but a pre-emptive o n e , in w h i c h G o d prevented David from taking to fruition his intent, an intent shown in his taking o f a census in preparation for a war o r wars o f imperialistic conquest. G o d graciously t u r n e d the entire fiasco

around, though not before e x a c t i n g a heavy toll o n David and

his people b y way o f p u n i s h m e n t and warning, and provided instead a spiritual focus as a substitute for what had b e e n potentially a disastrous military-political o n e .

109. This is, of course, what David had wanted to do in the first place (1 Sam 8, at a time in his life when his goals were more properly focused), and should have been happy to settle for, however much he would rather have built the temple himself than allowing Solomon that honor.

S T U A R T — D a v i d s Costly Flirtation

with

Empire-Building

BIBLIOGRAPHY Clough, Α. Α., trans. Plutarch's Lives. Vol. 2. Hazleton, PA: Penn State Electronic Classics Series, 2003. Cross, Ε M., Jr. "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration."/£L 94 (1975) 4-18. Gardiner, Alan. Egyptian Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Gordon, Robert. 1 and 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids: Regency/Zondervan, 1998. Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger, editors. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997-2002. King, L. W. Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings. Vol. 2. London: Luzac, 1907. Reprint, Ann Arbor: University Reprints, 2005. Mendenhall, George. "The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26." JBL 77 (1958) 52-66. Moran, W. L."The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy." CBQ 77(1963) 77-87. Motyl, Alexander J. Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Pratt, Richard. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Fearn, U.K.: Mentor, 1998. Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Speiser, E. A. "The Legend of Sargon." ANET 119. Stuart, Douglas. Exodus. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006 . Micah-Malachi. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, forthcoming. . "The Sovereigns Day of Conquest." BASOR 221 (1976) 159-64. Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. New York: Harper, 1962. Wilson, John Α., translator. "The War against the Hyksos." ANET 232-33. Wiseman, D. J. "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon." Iraq 20 (1958) 266-68. Wright, G. Ernest. The Old Testament against Its Environment. London: SCM, 1950.

2

Walking in the Light of Yahweh Zion and the Empires in the Book of Isaiah

M A R K J. B O D A

INTRODUCTION

I

N T H E E A R L Y E I G H T H c e n t u r y B C E , two kings rose to power in Israel and Judah w h o s e l o n g reigns witness to the i n d e p e n d e n c e o f their

k i n g d o m s from external influence. U n d e r Uzziah (Judah) and J e r o b o a m II (Israel), the c o m b i n e d territory o f the two k i n g d o m s would equal that b o a s t e d for S o l o m o n . Ironically, Uzziah s reign o f 5 2 years ( 2 Kgs 15:2) and J e r o b o a m U s reign o f 41 years (2 Kgs 14:23) represented not the b e ­ ginning, but the e n d o f the p e r i o d o f imperial freedom for the k i n g d o m s . It was in m a n y ways t h e c a l m before the storm. J e r o b o a m II would b e followed b y a q u i c k succession o f kings ( Z e c h a r i a h , Shallum, M e n a h e m , Pekahiah, Pekah) w h o s e relatively short reigns highlight the political instability o f the n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m . M e n a h e m s tribute to Tiglath Pileser I I I , noted in the O l d Testament and ancient N e a r Eastern inscriptions ( 2 K g s 1 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 ; see ANET

2 8 3 ; COS

2 : 2 8 5 2 . 1 1 7 A ; 2 : 2 8 7 2 . 1 1 7 B ) , would o n l y slow the rising Assyrian threat. Five years and two m o n a r c h s later, t h e s a m e Assyrian king would depose the Israelite Pekah and install his o w n puppet H o s h e a (2 Kgs 1 5 : 2 9 - 3 0 ; COS 2 : 2 8 8 2 . 1 1 7 C ) , signaling t h e e n d o f Israels i n d e p e n d e n c e . P r o p p e d up b y the Assyrians, H o s h e a would last a decade on the t h r o n e , but upon 54

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

55

his refusal to pay tribute to S h a l m a n e s e r V a n d his appeal to the Egyptian S o for help ( 2 K g s 1 7 : 3 - 6 ) , t h e Assyrians would b r i n g an e n d to Israel as a vassal k i n g d o m , i n c o r p o r a t i n g its territory as a province into its empire and exiling m a n y o f its people to M e s o p o t a m i a .

1

These imperial i n c u r s i o n s against t h e n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m (Israel) were a h a r b i n g e r o f things to c o m e for t h e even weaker Judean k i n g d o m to t h e south. U z z i a h s death, approximately fourteen years after that o f J e r o b o a m I I , would also signal a n e w era in J u d a h s relationship with t h e s u r r o u n d i n g empires. T h e instability o f t h e k i n g d o m s to t h e n o r t h (Israel and A r a m - D a m a s c u s ) m e a n t that t h e buffer z o n e b e t w e e n M e s o p o t a m i a and Judah was in danger o f disappearing. T h e desperation o f these two n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m s also explains their threats against t h e kings w h o fol­ lowed Uzziah, especially A h a z (Isaiah 7 ) . It is in this historico-political c o n t e x t that Isaiah appears o n t h e national stage (Isa 6 : 1 ) . A l t h o u g h Israel and Judah h a d e x p e r i e n c e d i m ­ perial threats p r i o r to this point, even paying tribute to M e s o p o t a m i a n 2

powers, t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f t h e eighth c e n t u r y would see a transition to a p e r m a n e n t imperial political p r e s e n c e in the Levant, evidenced in the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f A r a m - D a m a s c u s a n d Israel as provinces within the growing Assyrian empire. It is clear f r o m ancient sources that A h a z and Hezekiah felt Assyrian pressure, t h e latter e x p e r i e n c i n g an invasion at the h a n d o f S e n n a c h e r i b probably designed to i n c o r p o r a t e Judah into t h e Assyrian empire. Although, after Hezekiah, pressure f r o m Assyria was slightly reduced, ancient inscriptions reveal that Assyrian pressure o n Judah c o n t i n u e d until at least t h e m i d - s e v e n t h c e n t u r y B C E , with tribute b e i n g delivered 3

to Sennacherib's successors E s a r h a d d o n a n d Ashurbanipal. T h e weak1. In the Assyrian annals, it is Sargon II (Shalmaneser s successor) who would claim to have defeated Samaria and exiled its people: see ANET 284-87; COS 2.118A; COS 2.118D. Some have suggested that Sargon was the general under Shalmaneser or that Shalmaneser died during the siege of Samaria so that Sargon was king by the time the city was defeated. Notice COS 3:270-7Ί, a court order from Samaria concerning repay­ ment of a loan for work animals with evidence of a mixed population in Samaria (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24-30). 2. Notice the tribute paid by Jehoash (father of Jeroboam II) to Adad-nirari III in 796; Jehus tribute to Shalmaneser III in 841 (ANET280-81; COS 2.113F); Shalmaneser Ill's defeat of Ahab and Hadad-ezer of Damascus at Qarqar in 853 BCE (COS 2:263-64) and the much earlier invasion of Shishak (Shoshenq I) into the Levant (ANET 242-43, 263-64; ANEP 349; 1 Kgs 14:25-28). 3. ANET 291 shows evidence of Manasseh taking tribute to Esarhaddon (678 BCE) and of Ashurbanipals defeat of Manasseh along with the kings of Tyre and Edom

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

e n i n g state o f Assyria after A s h u r b a n i p a l s death ( 6 3 1 B C E ) is probably reflected in t h e long reign o f Josiah ( 6 4 0 - 6 0 9 B C E ) . This short respite from M e s o p o t a m i a n pressure would function m u c h like that o f Uzziah in an earlier era. However, t h e death o f Josiah at the h a n d o f t h e Egyptian P h a r a o h N e c o at M e g i d d o signaled t h e e n d o f Judean c o n t r o l over their o w n political affairs, as first t h e Egyptians and then the B a b y l o n i a n s 4

would set up their o w n puppet kings in the "vassal" k i n g d o m . B y 5 8 7 B C E Nebuchadnezzar's p a t i e n c e with rebellious Judean vassals had c o m e t o an end, so t h e B a b y l o n i a n e m p e r o r reconstituted Judah as a province within his e m p i r e with M i z p a h as provincial capital, while exiling its 5

elite t o t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n h e a r t l a n d . T h e fall o f B a b y l o n , however, in 5 3 9 B C E at t h e h a n d s o f t h e Persians would provide n o reprieve for the Jews from imperial d o m i n a t i o n . A l t h o u g h the Persians would facilitate their return t o the land a n d r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f their temple in Jerusalem, Judah (now, Yehud) would r e m a i n a tiny province, at first within the satrapy o f B a b y l o n i a - A b a r - N a h a r a (the f o r m e r B a b y l o n i a n e m p i r e ) , a n d later the even smaller satrapy o f A b a r - N a h a r a within t h e sprawling Persian empire. Persian c o n t r o l would eventually give way to G r e e k ( 3 3 2 B C E ) . Judah would n o t regain k i n g d o m status until the hiatus o f the M a c c a b e a n s in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C E , brought t o an e n d b y the inva­ sion o f t h e R o m a n P o m p e i i in 6 3 B C E . T h e b o o k o f Isaiah thus offers s o m e o f the first theological reflec­ tions o n Judah s identity in a world d o m i n a t e d b y empire and, as the b o o k progresses, it presents audiences living under increasing and enduring 6

imperial d o m i n a t i o n . In t h e first phase (chs. 6 - 3 9 ) , Judah is presented (ANET 294-95). ANET 301 shows tribute given to Ashurbanipal by "the inhabitants of Judah" along with tribute from Ammon, Moab, and Edom. 4. Interestingly this perspective is expressed most accurately by the Chronicler. See Boda, "Identity and Empire." 5. See Lipschitz, Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. 6. This paper generally avoids discussing the much larger issue of the authorship and redaction of the book of Isaiah. For detailed presentation of the history of scholar­ ship on this see Sweeney, Isaiah 1-4,4-54; Williamson, Isaiah. I am treating the book as a canonical unity and offering a reading of the book in light of the shifting audience(s) which can be discerned as the book progresses sequentially. For recent forays in this direction, see especially Childs, Introduction, 325-34; Clements,"Unity"; Brueggemann, "Unity and Dynamic"; Davies, "Destiny"; Evans, "Unity and Parallel Structure"; Seitz, "Isaiah 1-66"; Webb, "Zion in Transformation"; Oswalt, "Nations in Isaiah," although cf. Sawyer, Fifth Gospel, Carr, "Reaching for Unity"; Carr, "Reading Isaiah"; Coggins, "Do We Still Need Deutero-Isaiah?"

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

57

as an i n d e p e n d e n t k i n g d o m facing t h e threat o f an i m p o s i n g yet external imperial force. In t h e s e c o n d phase (chs. 4 0 - 5 5 ) , Judah is depicted as a c o m m u n i t y exiled t o t h e c e n t e r o f a foreign empire. In t h e third phase (chs. 5 6 - 6 6 ) , Judah is portrayed as living in its o w n land as a province within t h e largest e m p i r e t h e world h a d ever k n o w n . E a c h o f these three phases provides its o w n u n i q u e approach to empire and t h e purpose o f this paper is t o highlight t h e way in w h i c h the b o o k o f Isaiah shaped J u d a h s response t o empire. Isaiah 1 - 5 , with its focus o n Z i o n , introduces these various phases in t h e Isaianic witness. It is there that this paper will b e g i n in order t o see h o w it shapes t h e reading o f the b o o k as a whole.

ISAIAH 1-5: T H E HOLY O N E A N D Z I O N It is surprising t o many, especially t h o s e w h o have read the b o o k s o f J e r e m i a h a n d Ezekiel, that t h e call o f the prophet Isaiah is n o t reported until ch. 6. S o m e have explained this historically, n o t i n g that Isa 1:1 refers to Isaiahs m i n i s t r y during t h e reign o f Uzziah, c o n c l u d i n g that Isaiah 1-5 7

represents t h e p r o p h e t s utterances in t h e earliest p e r i o d . O t h e r s have challenged this, n o t i n g that a m i n i s t r y that s p a n n e d the reigns o f Uzziah to Hezekiah is inordinately long. A closer l o o k at t h e initial chapter o f Isaiah suggests that these initial chapters were placed at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the b o o k o f Isaiah for literary rather than historical reasons.

Isaiah

1

The two superscriptions at 1:1 and 2:1 divide Isaiah 1-5 into two sections. T h e first o n e ( 1 : 1 ) appears t o function as a superscription for at least Isaiah 1 - 3 9 , in that it identifies t h e kings w h o appear in the first and last superscriptions tied t o the reign o f a k i n g ( 6 : 1 ; 3 6 : 1 ) . A n investigation o f Isaiah 1 c o n f i r m s t h e suspicion that it does n o t reflect t h e p e r i o d before the death o f Uzziah. Reference is m a d e in this section to a J e r u s a l e m that is in serious trouble, a city u n d e r siege and left alone a m o n g t h e fortified cities ( 1 : 7 - 8 ) . R e f e r e n c e is m a d e to survivors w h o barely escaped from this siege ( 1 : 9 ) . T h e p e r i o d that appears to b e reflected in this o p e n i n g chapter is that o f Sennacherib's siege against the land o f Judah during the reign o f Hezekiah. T h e r e J e r u s a l e m is left as t h e last holdout after t h e Assyrians h a d taken all t h e Judean fortified cities ( 3 6 : 1 ) and there 7. Thus Isaiah 6 would be a commissioning for a task and not Isaiahs initial call. Cf. Kaplan, "Isaiah 6:1-11"; Milgrom, Did Isaiah Prophesy"; Williamson, Isaiah, 33 n. 7. u

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W TESTAMENT

is an emphasis o n t h e r e m n a n t that survived Assyrian aggression (Isa 3 7 : 4 , 3 1 - 3 2 ) . This p r e l i m i n a r y evidence, therefore, suggests that Isaiah 1 represents t h e latest phase o f Isaiahs prophetic utterances (during the reign o f H e z e k i a h ) rather than t h e earliest phase. This o p e n i n g chapter consists o f two prophetic pieces: a covenant lawsuit in 1 : 2 - 2 0 followed b y an a n n o u n c e m e n t o f j u d g m e n t in 1:21 - 3 1 . In t h e covenant lawsuit, t h e prophet outlines a clear case against the people, e n d i n g the speech with an invitation to repent, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a w a r n i n g that refusal will lead to destruction. T h e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f j u d g m e n t in the s e c o n d h a l f o f the chapter reveals that the people ulti­ mately would n o t turn from their rebellion, but instead would b e refined b y G o d s j u d g m e n t , a process that would transform Z i o n into a righteous and faithful city. In this way Isaiah 1 is a fitting introduction n o t o n l y for chs. 1 - 3 9 , 8

but also for the entire b o o k . Speaking to a people w h o are rebellious and stubborn, the prophet will offer t h e m grace, but in the end, w h e n t h e y do not turn, t h e y will b e judged. This j u d g m e n t will n o t b e m e r e l y for pun­ i s h m e n t s sake, but for purging t h e m o f their impurities. Additionally, this o p e n i n g chapter identifies the two m a j o r characters o f the b o o k o f Isaiah: Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m ( 1 : 8 , 2 1 , 2 6 , 2 7 ) and Yahweh, the H o l y O n e o f Israel ( 1 : 4 ) .

Isaiah

2-5

Isaiah 2 : 1 , however, c o m p r i s e s a s e c o n d superscription, o n e that distin­ guishes ch. 1 from chs. 2 - 5 in what appears to b e this literary introduc­ tion to the b o o k . In these chapters t h e prophetic messages vacillate b a c k and forth between two visions o f Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m . Isaiah 2 : 1 - 5 offers the vision o f t h e great p u r p o s e o f the b o o k o f Isaiah, and m a n y have n o t e d r e s o n a n c e s b e t w e e n this section and Isaiah 6 6 where the b o o k 9

e n d s . Isaiah 2 : 1 - 5 describes the ultimate goal o f Jerusalem, that is, that it would b e c o m e a h u b for t h e nations. Centripetal and centrifugal forces are evident in this Z i o n , with the nations b e i n g drawn to it ( w . 2 b - 3 a , centripetal) a n d the T o r a h going out from it ( w . 3 b - 4 , centrifugal). This will happen b e c a u s e the m o u n t a i n will b e c o m e c h i e f a m o n g the m o u n t a i n s o f t h e world, an image that shows Z i o n to b e the place 8. Cf. Fohrer,"Jesaja 1." 9. See Davies, "Destiny," 93. See also Sweeney,"Isaiah as Prophetic Torah," who shows how the vision of Torah in Isa 2:1-5 is developed throughout the book as a whole.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light

of

Yahweh

where t h e ruler o f t h e universe, Yahweh the king, sits a n d reigns ( c o m ­ pare P s a l m 4 8 ) .

1 0

B u t h o w will such a radical vision ever b e c o m e a reality,

since ch. 1 has d e s c r i b e d a vastly different city and nation t h a n this? H o w will Z i o n b e c o m e such a place for t h e nations? T h e answer is that it must first b e c o m e t h e c o m m u n i t y d e s c r i b e d in ch. 4 . In 4 : 2 - 6 t h e prophet looks t o a day w h e n Z i o n a n d J e r u s a l e m will b e filled with a r e m n a n t that is h o l y ( w . 3 - 4 ) a n d will b e protected b y Yahwehs p r e s e n c e in its midst ( w . 5 - 6 ) . In contrast, t h e o t h e r p e r i c o p a e in chs. 2 - 5 , w h i c h s u r r o u n d these two positive visions, highlight t h e present reality o f Z i o n . E x e m p l a r y is 5 : 1 - 7 , w h i c h employs t h e i m a g e o f t h e vineyard and describes Israel, Judah, a n d J e r u s a l e m as a vineyard that has n o t r e s p o n d e d t o t h e care o f the vinedresser. At t h e c o r e o f chs. 2 - 5 , then, lie two c o m p e t i n g visions o f Z i o n , vacillating in this s e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e present b a d Z i o n a n d t h e future g o o d Z i o n .

Zion and

Empire

T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e b o o k o f Isaiah highlights Z i o n as a k e y leit­ m o t i f for t h e b o o k .

1 1

T h e c e n t r i p e t a l a n d centrifugal vision o f Z i o n s

role o n e a r t h in c h . 2 r e s o n a t e s w i t h t h e b r o a d e r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e Z i o n t r a d i t i o n in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t .

12

F o r i n s t a n c e , P s a l m 4 8 reveals

that Z i o n is t h e city o f t h e great k i n g , t h e j o y o f t h e w h o l e earth, i m ­ p r e g n a b l e t o t h e crafty designs o f rebellious kings. P s a l m 2 reveals that Z i o n is t h e p l a c e o n e a r t h f r o m w h i c h Y a h w e h rules over t h e k i n g s a n d n a t i o n s o f t h e earth. T h e Z i o n tradition represents t h e imperial tradition within the O l d T e s t a m e n t b e c a u s e t h e H o l y O n e o f Israel is depicted as ruling t h e world 10. This echoes the ultimate purpose of the book of Isaiah, which envisions by the end in Isa 66:18-21 the nations gathering to see Yahwehs glory. 11. As does Seitz, "Isaiah 1-66," 122, suggesting the book could be called: "The Drama of God and Zion." Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 146, identifies Zion theology as being "responsible for the extension of Isaiahs oracles beyond their original eighthcentury setting." Cf. Roberts, "Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," 136; Dumbrell, "Purpose of the Book of Isaiah"; Williamson, Isaiah, 241-42; Clements, "Zion"; Hoppe, Holy City. Oswalt, "Nations in Isaiah," 42,51, and Davies, "Destiny," 105, emphasize the relationship between Zion and the nations. 12. For this see especially Porteous, "Jerusalem-Zion"; Weinfeld, "Zion and Jeru­ salem"; Ollenburger, Zion; Clements, "Zion"; Hess and Wenham, eds., Zion, City of Our God-, Hoppe, Holy City; Levenson, Sinai and Zion. With thanks to Hyukki Kim and Lois Fuller Dow for rich conversations about Zion. See Dow, Images of Zion.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

from Z i o n .

13

A n d yet it is this ideal that is threatened in Isaiahs day. T h e

city does not reflect the c h a r a c t e r o f its e m p e r o r and so either its inhabit­ ants m u s t b r i n g themselves into c o n f o r m i t y with his values o r the city will b e purified b y Yahwehs j u d g m e n t . Strikingly absent from the Z i o n tradition at the outset o f Isaiah, however, is a c o n n e c t i o n to the Davidic royal tradition, a c o n n e c t i o n seen in P s a l m s 2 , 1 1 0 , and 1 3 2 .

14

Although Ollenburger has argued c o ­

gently that the Z i o n tradition should b e neither s u b s u m e d u n d e r the Davidic tradition n o r inextricably linked to it, the a b s e n c e o f the latter is striking in light o f the close association with Davidic figures in the next section o f Isaiah (chs. 6 - 3 9 ) .

1 5

T h e focus in the introduction to the b o o k

(chs. 1 - 5 ) is exclusively o n the imperial rule o f the Holy O n e o f Israel from Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m , his capital. In this capital, holy citizens will enjoy their e m p e r o r s presence and protection. To this capital the nations will c o m e to pay h o m a g e and from this capital justice will e m a n a t e to the nations.

ISAIAH 6 - 3 9 Isaiah

6: The Prophet

and the Holy

One

This i m a g e o f Z i o n as imperial seat o f the Holy O n e o f Israel informs the presentation o f Isaiahs call in ch. 6. In a visionary e x p e r i e n c e dated to the year o f the death o f the Davidic king Uzziah, the prophet is granted a vision o f Yahweh as divine " k i n g ' (v. 5 ) seated o n an exalted t h r o n e (v. 1 ) , 13. On the imperial ideology and Zion, see Roberts, "Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire," 108; Weinfeld, "Zion and Jerusalem," 94-100. 14. Contra von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:174; Roberts, "Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire"; Weinfeld, "Zion and Jerusalem"; Mays, "Isaiahs Royal Theology"; and Roberts, "Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," who import too much Davidic theology into Isaiahs Zion theology. Von Rad suggests this problem when he writes that it is "strange to see how detached and almost unconnected the two tradi­ tions are even as late as Isaiah" (Old Testament Theology, 1:174). So also Roberts, who admits: "Isaiah very often appears to ignore the human king" ("Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," 138). More accurate on this is Ollenburger, Zion, 139-40, who concludes: "While in the Near Eastern texts the language is always employed in the interests of glorifying the king, in the Zion texts of the Old Testament it is always Yahweh who is glorified, never the king." Some of the problem is confusion between the sociological origins and the theological use of the Zion traditions. 15. See Ollenburger, Zion, and Levenson, "Zion Traditions," 6:1100, yet compare Roberts, "Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition"; Roberts, "Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire."

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

s u r r o u n d e d b y heavenly attendants (v. 2 ) , identifying h i m as t h e "holy, holy, holy" o n e w h o s e "glory" fills t h e whole earth (v. 3 ) . T h e call o f the prophet is t o p r o c l a i m to t h e people until all that is left is "a holy seed" (v. 1 3 ) , that is, a c o m m u n i t y w h o s e c h a r a c t e r m a t c h e s their king. W h a t is envisioned here is a two-stage purification; t h e first results in a great destruction that will literally decimate t h e population, leav­ ing only a tenth as a r e m n a n t . B u t even this surviving r e m n a n t will b e destroyed a n d t h e o n l y " m e m o r y " left will b e t h e "seed" o f a o n c e m i g h t y tree. T h e s e two stages foreshadow t h e reality described in Isaiah 7 - 3 9 . A h a z s folly would result in the d e c i m a t i o n o f the k i n g d o m in H e z e k i a h s day as Assyria overran t h e nation. A l t h o u g h Hezekiah would survive as a r e m n a n t , his o w n folly with t h e B a b y l o n i a n envoys—reported in ch. 3 9 — w o u l d cause t h e ultimate c o m p l e t e destruction a n d exile o f Judah.

Isaiah

7-12 and 36-39:

The Tale of Two

Kings

Isaiah 6 , thus, introduces the larger literary c o m p l e x o f Isaiah 7 - 3 9 , a section that is b r a c k e t e d b y t h e narratives o f two Judean kings w h o were the first to face t h e growing M e s o p o t a m i a n imperial threat: A h a z ( 7 - 1 2 ) a n d his s o n H e z e k i a h ( 3 6 - 3 9 ) .

1 6

T h e s e two sections o f Isaiah share sev­

eral e l e m e n t s in c o m m o n : • •

B o t h c o n t a i n a m i x t u r e o f narrative a n d poetry. B o t h have an assault o n J e r u s a l e m b y a foreigner (Isa 7 : 1 - 6 and

•

36:1-2).

B o t h narratives are set in m o t i o n b y a m e e t i n g "at t h e aqueduct o f t h e U p p e r Pool, o n t h e road to t h e Washerman's Field" (Isa 7:3

•

and

36:2).

In b o t h , Isaiah calls o n the k i n g to trust in Yahweh, b e g i n n i n g b o t h speeches with t h e phrase " D o n o t b e afraid" (Isa 7 : 4 a n d 37:6).

•

In b o t h , a sign a c c o m p a n i e s a p r o m i s e from Yahweh (Isa 7 : 1 4 a n d 3 8 : 7 - 8 ) . T h e latter is l i n k e d to A h a z b y t h e fact that H e z e k i a h s sign takes place o n A h a z s stairway.

•

B o t h use t h e phrase "zeal o f t h e L O R D A l m i g h t y will a c c o m ­ plish" (Isa 9 : 7 a n d

37:32).

16. See Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 195-96; Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 34-51; cf. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39,55,629-30.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

But while these e l e m e n t s c o n n e c t the two sections, a series o f differences identify A h a z as a foil, that is, a dark b a c k d r o p against which o n e is to see H e z e k i a h m o r e brilliantly: •

W h i l e Isaiah must go to A h a z (Isa 7:3), Isaiah is invited b y Hezekiah ( 3 7 : 2 ) .

•

W h i l e A h a z considers Assyria the answer to his p r o b l e m , Hezekiah faces Assyria as the p r o b l e m .

•

W h i l e A h a z faces the threat o f invasion by two small nations (Isa 7:1), Hezekiah faces an actual invasion b y a vast a r m y (36:8-10,36).

•

W h i l e A h a z does not trust G o d b y m a k i n g alliance with Assyria, Hezekiah ultimately trusts G o d and sees the defeat o f Assyria.

The key t h e m e that drives this c o m p a r i s o n is that o f faith, intro­ duced first in Isaiahs speech to A h a z in 7:9: " I f you will not believe, you surely shall n o t last" ( N A S B ) . F a c e d with an invasion b y the k i n g d o m s o f Israel a n d A r a m - D a m a s c u s , A h a z s u c c u m b s to the temptation t o appeal t o Assyria for help. In the short run this alleviated the pressure from the k i n g d o m s directly to the n o r t h , but in the long run it led to the d e m i s e o f t h o s e n o r t h e r n k i n g d o m s and t h e advance o f the Assyrian imperial b o r d e r s t o j u s t n o r t h o f Jerusalem. It is o f this that Isaiah r e m i n d s the audience in 8 : 7 - 8 when he describes the Assyrian e m p e r o r as "the strong and a b u n d a n t waters o f the Euphrates," which will "rise up over all its c h a n n e l s and go over all its b a n k s " a n d then "it will sweep o n into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, it will reach even t o the neck; and the spread o f its wings will fill the breadth o f your land, Ο I m m a n u e l " ( N A S B ) . W h a t A h a z invites in his own t i m e , b e c a u s e o f a lack o f trust in Yahweh, will ultimately flood his own land, a p r o p h e c y o f the military invasion e x p e r i e n c e d b y his son Hezekiah a generation later. The description o f H e z e k i a h s response to the invasion in his t i m e stands in stark contrast to that o f his father Ahaz. H e responds to the Assyrian e m p e r o r s (Sennacherib's) first intimidating speech by tearing his clothes, entering the temple o f Yahweh, and appealing to Yahwehs prophet

Isaiah

(37:1-7).

After

Sennacherib's s e c o n d

intimidation

through a letter, Hezekiah voices his trust in Yahweh t h r o u g h a prayer

BODA—

Walking

in the Light of

Yahweh

in the temple ( 3 7 : 1 4 - 2 0 ) , to which Yahweh responds with a prophetic message t h r o u g h Isaiah ( 3 7 : 2 1 - 3 5 ) .

Isaiah

13-35:

The Destiny

of the

Nations

T h e s e t w o a c c o u n t s o f Judean kings f u n c t i o n as a b r a c k e t a r o u n d chs. 7 - 3 9 a n d are d e s i g n e d to influence t h e reading o f t h e s e c t i o n s that lie b e t w e e n t h e m .

17

W h a t d o m i n a t e s chs. 1 3 - 3 5 is a c o n c e r n over t h e

n a t i o n s a n d G o d s clear m e s s a g e that h e will defeat t h e s e n a t i o n s , in­ cluding t h e great i m p e r i a l p o w e r s o f I s a i a h s t i m e . At t h e h e a r t o f t h e oracle series in c h s . 1 3 - 2 3 are t w o oracles i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e t e r m hoy and f o u n d in 1 7 : 1 2 - 1 4 a n d 1 8 : 1 - 7 . T h e n a t i o n referred t o in 1 8 : 1 - 7 is explicitly identified as C u s h ( 1 8 : 1 ) , a n d m o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s agree that the n a t i o n in 1 7 : 1 2 - 1 4 is Assyria. T h u s at the c e n t e r o f this c o m p l e x o f n a t i o n s are t h e two n a t i o n s vying for i m p e r i a l status in t h e days o f Isaiah. B r a c k e t i n g this entire s e c t i o n are B a b y l o n ( 1 3 : 1 - 2 2 ) a n d Tyre ( 2 3 : 1 - 1 8 ) , two p e o p l e g r o u p s in t h e Assyrian p e r i o d

represent­

ing k e y western ( T y r e ) a n d eastern ( B a b y l o n ) groups, powerful naval (Tyre) a n d l a n d ( B a b y l o n ) forces, a n d c o m m e r c i a l ( T y r e ) a n d cultural ( B a b y l o n ) forces. Interestingly, at t h e e n d o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n (Isa 2 3 : 1 3 ) , in a s e c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f Tyre, the p r o p h e t calls Tyre to l o o k at t h e land o f the B a b y l o n i a n s w h o s e city has e x p e r i e n c e d de­ s t r u c t i o n at t h e h a n d o f t h e A s s y r i a n s .

18

W h a t is clear f r o m all o f t h e s e

oracles against t h e n a t i o n s in c h s . 1 3 - 2 3 is that the n a t i o n s will b e n o m a t c h for t h e divine w a r r i o r Yahweh. T h e message o f chs. 1 3 - 2 3 is as follows: d o n o t put y o u r trust in t h e n a t i o n s for t h e y will all m e e t t h e i r d e m i s e at t h e h a n d o f Yahweh w h o rules t h e world.

17. This is not to discount the way in which the account of Hezekiah in chs. 36-39 functions as a transition to the latter half of the book, cf. Ackroyd, "Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile"; Ackroyd, "Isaiah 36-39"; Clements, "Unity," 120-21; Childs, Isaiah, 266. It should be noted that the connections to chs. 7-12 are to be found in chs. 36-38. Chapter 39 is the passage that shows the failure of Hezekiah. The same may be said for chs. 34-35, which Clements, "Beyond Tradition-History," 98, says "consciously antici­ pates and summarizes the major themes of chs. 40-55"; cf. Childs, Isaiah, 255-56. 18. Although rooted in the Assyrian crisis, the prophecies against Babylon at the outset of this collection also foreshadow the ultimate imperial role played by Babylon seen in ch. 39. In this way those responsible for the final form of Isaiah are applying principles from the Assyrian period to later communities. See, e.g., Begg, "Babylon in the Book of Isaiah," 123; Williamson, Isaiah. Clements applies the development of chs. 13-14 as a model for the development of the book as a whole; see Clements, "Unity."

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

This international vision is e x p a n d e d in what is often called t h e "Little Apocalypse" in Isaiah 2 4 - 2 7 , as two cities are contrasted: t h e earthly city o f destruction ( 2 4 : 1 2 ) and the divine city o f salvation ( 2 6 : 1 ) . Using universal and c o s m i c imagery, this section s u m s up the message o f chs. 1 3 - 2 3 , that is, that G o d will j u d g e the nations, establishing his rule from Z i o n and b r i n g i n g h o n o r to himself. His people, t h e r e m n a n t , will e m e r g e in t h e e n d but will n e e d to live through t h o s e times b y faith. Having dealt with t h e nations in a particular historical m a n n e r ( 1 3 - 2 3 ) and in a universal c o s m i c m a n n e r ( 2 4 - 2 7 ) , Isaiah 2 8 - 3 3 then focuses o n t h e inappropriate responses o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o f Isaiahs day.

19

At t h e c o r e o f this section are the w o e (hoy) oracles o f 2 9 : 1 — 3 1 : 9 , w h i c h attack t h e h u m a n s c h e m e s and alliances (see Π ^ Ι ? ; 2 9 : 1 5 ; 3 0 : 1 ) b e t w e e n the people o f Jerusalem and the national powers o f the day, a vivid e x ­ ample o f the lack o f trust these people had in their G o d . T h e message o f this section o f Isaiah is for the people to trust in Yahweh rather than in the nations ( 2 8 : 1 6 ; 3 0 : 1 5 , 18; 3 1 : 1 ) . Chapters 3 4 - 3 5 c o n c l u d e the c o r e o f Isaiah 7 - 3 9 with its focus o n the nations b y offering a s u m m a r y o f its m a i n t h e m e s , focusing o n b o t h G o d s j u d g m e n t and his g r a c e and foreshadowing t h e n e x t literary phase o f the b o o k in Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 .

The Kings

and the

Nations

Isaiah 1 3 - 3 5 , with its d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e ultimate d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n s a n d e m p i r e s , is d e s i g n e d to shape t h e reader s evaluation o f A h a z s folly a n d t h e reader s e x p e r i e n c e o f H e z e k i a h s c h a l l e n g e in c h s . 3 6 - 3 7 . T h e narrative o f c h s . 3 6 - 3 7 reveals that w h e n stripped o f all his r e s o u r c e s , H e z e k i a h did i n d e e d cast h i m s e l f a n d his n a t i o n u p o n t h e m e r c y o f G o d , a n d Yahweh a n s w e r e d his prayer. Ultimately, however, ch. 3 9 reveals that even as H e z e k i a h displayed t h e faith c o m m a n d e d in 7 : 4 - 9 a n d p r o m p t e d b y c h s . 1 3 - 3 5 , h e s u c c u m b e d to t h e folly o f trust­ ing in t h e n a t i o n s b y dialoguing with t h e B a b y l o n i a n envoys, forging a relationship with t h e B a b y l o n i a n s that initiated t h e u l t i m a t e d e m i s e o f Judah. This represents t h e fulfillment o f I s a i a h s p r o p h e t i c vision in ch. 6. T h e d e c i m a t e d r e m n a n t r e p r e s e n t e d b y H e z e k i a h in Z i o n w o u l d b e ultimately destroyed, leaving o n l y a m e m o r y t h r o u g h t h e s e e d o f exilic Judah.

19. On the role of chs. 28-33 in the book of Isaiah as a whole, see Stansell, "Isaiah 28-33."

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of Isaiah

6-39 and

Yahweh

Empire

As already n o t e d in t h e historical introduction, the long reigns o f Uzziah and his c o u n t e r p a r t in t h e n o r t h , J e r o b o a m I I , represented t h e final peri­ o d o f Israelite i n d e p e n d e n c e before t h e p e r m a n e n t rise o f M e s o p o t a m i a n imperial p o w e r .

20

It is thus n o t surprising that the a c c o u n t o f Isaiah 6 - 3 9

b e g i n s in t h e year o f Uzziah s death a n d provides a vision o f Yahweh as king. A s t h e Judeans are b u s y rearranging t h e chairs o n their m o n a r c h i a l Titanic, t h e p r o p h e t is given a vision o f o n e w h o is truly the k i n g o f t h e world. This t h r i c e h o l y k i n g rules from his palace o n Z i o n , from w h i c h his glory p e r m e a t e s t h e whole earth. S e n t f r o m t h e presence o f this K i n g , t h e H o l y O n e o f Israel, t h e p r o p h e t s message to Judahs royal h o u s e e n t h r o n e d in J e r u s a l e m is that t h e y m u s t n o t b e intimidated b y empire, n o r t e m p t e d t o trust in o t h e r anti-imperial political forces. R a t h e r t h e y are to trust in Yahweh alone w h o will protect a n d sustain t h e m . F a c e d with political ruin, two kings are called b y the prophet to put their faith in Yahweh a n d n o t fear t h e nations a n d empires o f their day. A l t h o u g h t h e prophet provides pictures o f t h e k i n d o f royal figure d e m a n d e d b y Yahweh (Isa 9 : 6 - 7 ; 1 1 : 1 - 1 2 ; 1 6 : 4 - 5 ; cf. 3 2 : l - 2 ) ,

2 1

b o t h o f t h e Davidides in t h e b o o k ultimately fail t h e

test a n d their failure results in the r u i n o f the n a t i o n b y t h e successive empires o f Assyria a n d B a b y l o n .

22

Foreign empire in Isaiah 6 - 3 9 is viewed skeptically. Imperial forces are n o t to b e trusted a n d interactions with t h e m will o n l y lead to disas­ ter. T h e consistent call is to trust in Yahweh as t h e H o l y O n e o f Israel w h o has t h e authority a n d p o w e r to discipline a n d rule the nations. T h e Judean royal h o u s e is t e m p t e d to conceptualize itself in light o f t h e view o f e m p i r e prevalent in its day. Yahweh challenges this royal h o u s e 20. Josiah would enjoy a period of independence, but only because the imperial "baton" was being passed from Assyria to Babylon; cf. Boda, Haggai/Zechariah. 21. See Boda, 1-2 Chronides, 147-64. Although Quinn-Miscall is correct in noticing Isaiahs concerns with the kings in his own era, his attempts to interpret allusions to an ideal royalfigureas merely hope for general messianic conditions are inappropriate. See Quinn-Miscall, Reading Isaiah, 172. 22. As admitted by Roberts, "Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," 139: "To a great extent Isaiahs description of the ideal future king, as does his description of the future Jerusalem, represents a devaluation or criticism of the present holders of that office; and his disgust with the contemporary house of David may be one reason why the promises to David figure no more prominently in his message than they do. Moreover, as in the case of the Zion hymns, Isaiah was more concerned with glorifying the divine king than with spelling out the role of his human agent."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

to adopt a view o f h u m a n and divine empire shaped b y the vision o f the H o l y O n e o f Israel. A l t h o u g h such a vision would ensure that Judah would n o t merely survive but thrive within its political e n v i r o n m e n t , this vision d e m a n d s that t h e royal h o u s e discharge all c l a i m s to kingship in Judah and entrust themselves and their k i n g d o m into t h e h a n d s o f Yahweh.

ISAIAH 4 0 - 5 5 T h e historical c o n t e x t o f the audience addressed after Isaiah 3 9 is n o t explicitly articulated in the text. W h e r e a s throughout Isaiah 1 - 3 9 his­ torical superscriptions link the material to a particular t i m e p e r i o d ( 1 : 1 ; 2 : 1 ; 6:1; 7 : 1 ; 14:28; 3 6 : 1 ) , from Isaiah 4 0 onward such superscriptions are absent. T h e structure o f Isaiah 1 - 3 9 , ending as it does with t h e p r o p h e c y o f the exile in 3 9 : 5 - 7 , is the first indication that the audience o f Isaiah 4 0 is the c o m m u n i t y in the B a b y l o n i a n p e r i o d .

23

T h e prophecy itself con­

firms this with c l e a r e v i d e n c e that it is directed to a c o m m u n i t y in n e e d o f comfort, w h i c h is situated in B a b y l o n and nearing the end o f its "hard service."

24

F o r this c o m m u n i t y , a Persian king n a m e d Cyrus w h o arose

during the B a b y l o n i a n period is identified as an e x p e c t e d deliverer. Therefore, Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 addresses the c o m m u n i t y that would e x ­ p e r i e n c e the discipline resulting from the folly o f A h a z and Hezekiah in chs. 6 - 3 9 . T h e trust o f these two kings in rising M e s o p o t a m i a n imperial forces ( A h a z in Assyria, Hezekiah in B a b y l o n ) is linked in 3 9 : 5 - 7 to the exile o f Judah to the heart o f the M e s o p o t a m i a n empire ("in the palace o f the king o f Babylon"). It is to this c o m m u n i t y that Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 is addressed.

23. What Clements, "Beyond Tradition-History," 98, calls "an important editorial 'bridge between the threat to Jerusalem posed by the Assyrians and that which was later posed by the armies of Babylon," cf. Clements, "Unity," 120-21; Begg, "Babylon in the Book of Isaiah," 121-25. Some treat all of chs. 36-39 or even chs. 34-39 in this way, cf. Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 50-51; Clements, "Unity," 120-21; Seitz, Zions Final Destiny. I appreciate the distinction Webb makes between chs. 36-37, which are more closely related to what precedes, and chs. 38-39, which look to what follows. See Webb, "Zion in Transformation," 69-70. 24. Contrast Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 206, who argues against fixation on an exilic context. However, the one responsible for 48:20 ("Leave Babylon, flee from the Babylonians!") appears to point in another direction.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of Isaiah

Yahweh

40:1-11

Isaiah 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 functions for Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 m u c h as Isaiah 6 functions for Isaiah 6 - 3 9 , depicting what appears to b e a prophetic calling e x p e r i e n c e .

25

W h i l e t h e t o n e o f Isaiah 6 was clearly negative, n o t j u s t e x p e c t i n g but e n ­ suring t h e refusal o f Judah to repent, the t o n e o f Isa 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 is positive, a n n o u n c i n g c o m f o r t for the exiles. As Isaiah 6 introduced t h e prophetic calling t h r o u g h a vision o f t h e t h r i c e holy G o d , Isa 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 concludes with a vision o f Yahweh ( 4 0 : 9 c : "Here is your G o d " ) as Sovereign and Shepherd Lord. This twofold vision o f Yahweh is expressed t h r o u g h two images o f t h e "arm," the o n e in 4 0 : 1 0 denoting a powerful a r m a n d the o n e in 4 0 : 1 1 a tender a r m . T h e message is directed to a c o m m u n i t y , called "my people" a n d "Zion," w h i c h is nearing the e n d o f a p e r i o d o f discipline for past sins ( 4 0 : 1 - 2 ) . T h e m e n t i o n o f Z i o n highlights t h e role o f Isa 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 within the b o o k o f Isaiah as a whole, drawing o n the k e y t h e m e o f t h e earlier part o f the b o o k a n d introducing the n e w phase o f prophetic w i t n e s s .

26

Isaiah

40:12-31

and

49:14-26

This prophetic "call" in 40:1 - 1 1 is followed b y a section that sets t h e t o n e for 4 0 : 1 2 — 4 9 : 1 3 . Isaiah 4 0 : 1 2 - 3 1 constitutes a disputation series, a f o r m that employs questions to develop an a r g u m e n t (e.g., Job, M a l a c h i ) . K e y to this series is 4 0 : 2 7 : Why do you complain, Jacob, Why do you say, Israel, "My way is hidden from Yahweh; my cause is disregarded by my God"? Here t h e prophet cites t h e c r y o f s o m e o n e n a m e d Jacob-Israel, an in­ dividual w h o will b e identified as "my servant" in the c o m i n g chapters ( 4 1 : 8 ; 4 4 : 1 - 2 , 2 1 ; 4 5 : 4 ) , and, at least at first, represents "my people" in n e e d o f t h e c o m f o r t that is to typify this n e w era o f Judahs history ( 4 0 : 1 ) .

25. See the connections between Isaiah 6 and 40 noted by Rendtorff,"Jesaja 6"; Carr, "Reaching for Unity"; Williamson, Isaiah, 37-38, esp. n. 21. Cf. Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 197, and literature cited there, esp. Cross, "Council of Yahweh." 26. So also Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 199, who writes: "It is above all the focus on Zion-Jerusalem in 40:1-11 that points to an awareness of the Hezekiah-Isaiah narrative portrayal."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

The l a m e n t o f t h e servant J a c o b - I s r a e l in 4 0 : 2 7 is m a t c h e d b y a n o t h e r l a m e n t v o i c e d b y Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m in 4 9 : 1 4 : But Zion said, "Yahweh has forsaken me The Lord has forgotten me." A l t h o u g h Z i o n has b e e n called to p r o c l a i m "Here is y o u r G o d " ( 4 0 : 9 ) a n d this G o d is presented as powerful and g o o d ( 4 0 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , the p r o b l e m for the servant a n d Z i o n is that this powerful and g o o d G o d does n o t appear to regard o r r e m e m b e r t h e m . It is interesting that the identities o f t h o s e w h o v o i c e t h e s e two la­ m e n t s m a t c h the audience addressed within the s e c t i o n s w h i c h follow e a c h lament, a fact b o r n e out b y t h e following chart. Addressed Directly or Speaks

Referred to

Israel

40:27; 41:8, 14; 43:1, 22; 44:1, 6, 21; 45:4; 46:3; 48:1, 12; 49:3 (by servant)

41:16, 17, 20; 42:24; 43:3, 14, 15, 28; 44:5, 6, 23; 45:3, 11, 15, 17, 25; 46:13; 47:4; 48:2, 17; 49:5, 6, 7; 52:12; 54:5; 55:5 (cf. 56:8; 60:9, 14; 63:7,16)

Jacob

40:27; 41:8, 14; 43:1, 22; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:19; 46:3; 48:1,12

41:21; 42:24; 43:28; 44:5; 44:23; 45:4; 48:20; 49:5, 6, 26 (cf. 58:1, 14; 59:20; 60:16; 65:9)

Jerusalem

40:2,9; 51:17; 52:1,2,9; 62:6

41:27; 44:26,28 (cf. 62:1, 7; 64:10; 65:18,19; 66:10,13,20)

Zion

40:9; 49:14; 51:16; 52:1, 2, 7; 60:14; 62:11

40:9; 41:27; 46:13; 51:3, 11; 52:8 (cf. 59:20; 61:3; 62:1, 11; 64:10; 66:8)

This shows that these two l a m e n t s function as structural signals in Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 , dividing the section into 4 0 : 1 2 — 4 9 : 1 3 , with its addresses to the Servant Jacob-Israel and 4 9 : 1 4 — 5 4 : 1 7 with its addresses to D a u g h t e r Zion-Jerusalem.

27

As can b e seen from the chart, b o t h c h a r a c t e r s are

referred t o in each section, a fact that shows their intimate relationship. B o t h figures represent, at least in s o m e way, the c o m m u n i t y in exile (e.g., 49:3; 51:16).

27. On the key role of the laments, see Westermann, Isaiah 40-66; cf. Boda,"Uttering." On differences between the two sections of Isaiah 40-55, see especially Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah."

BODA—

Walking

in the Light of

Yahweh

The prophet responds t o t h e first l a m e n t (servant J a c o b - I s r a e l s ) in Isa 4 0 : 2 7 with a litany o f questions that address two possible a n d related reactions to t h e exile. Exilic Israel m i g h t have interpreted t h e defeat o f Judah as an indication that ( 1 ) the people a n d leaders o f t h e empire m u s t 28

be in c o n t r o l , a n d ( 2 ) t h e gods o f the e m p i r e m u s t b e in c o n t r o l . T h e re­ m a i n d e r o f this passage vacillates between these two possible responses with w . 1 2 - 1 7 a n d 2 2 - 2 4 addressing t h e conclusion that t h e political powers o f t h e e m p i r e h a d w o n t h e day a n d w . 1 8 - 2 0

a n d 2 5 - 2 6 address­

ing t h e c o n c l u s i o n that the religious powers o f the e m p i r e h a d e m e r g e d victorious. T h e answer t o these c o n c e r n s that lay b e h i n d J a c o b - I s r a e l s cry was theological in character. This is n o t surprising in light o f t h e fact that t h e basic message for Z i o n in 4 0 : 9 is "Here is your God." E a c h o f the p e r i c o p a e in 4 0 : 1 2 - 2 6 answers the conclusions o f exilic Israel in the s a m e way: G o d is t h e C r e a t o r and in c o m p a r i s o n t h e nations are but a "drop in t h e bucket," a "speck o f dust o n t h e scales," t h e rulers are but "grasshoppers" a n d "meaningless," while the gods are b u t m e t a l o r w o o d fashioned b y an artisan. T h e s e c t i o n ends with the c o m f o r t i n g offer o f renewed strength to t h o s e w h o will put their h o p e in Yahweh ( 4 0 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) . The l a m e n t o f Servant Jacob-Israel in 4 0 : 2 7 p r o m p t s t h e prophetic m e s ­ sages o f Isa 4 0 : 1 2 — 4 9 : 1 3 with the initial response in ch. 4 0 p o i n t i n g t h e exilic c o m m u n i t y to Yahweh as C r e a t o r w h o c a n b e trusted. The s e c o n d l a m e n t , that o f D a u g h t e r Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m in Isa 4 9 : 1 4 , interestingly follows the call to creation in 4 9 : 1 3 to b r e a k into a s o n g o f praise. C r e a t i o n s s o n g introduces v o c a b u l a r y that will b e repeated constantly t h r o u g h o u t chs. 4 9 - 5 4 : For the LORD has comforted (DUD) his people And will have compassion ( 0 Γ Π ) on his afflicted. However, this is hardly t h e expression o n the lips o f Z i o n . W h i l e the entire creation is called to gleeful praise at the thought o f t h e restora­ tion o f his afflicted people, Z i o n h e r s e l f is toeing a different line. F r o m t h e heights o f t h e praise o f Isa 4 9 : 1 3 t h e b o o k plunges to t h e depths o f l a m e n t in 4 9 : 1 4 , w h i c h states: " T h e L O R D has forsaken m e , a n d the L o r d has forgotten me." W h a t has caused such l a m e n t b y Z i o n ? T h e answer to this question is best answered b y observing a key phrase repeated t h r o u g h o u t this section: "do n o t fear": 28. See Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 200, who shows how Isaiah 36-38 prepares the reader for these two emphases.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

51:7: "do not fear the reproach of humanity" 51:12: "who are you that fear mortals" 54:4: "do not fear" Overwhelmed

b y fear o f h u m a n power, strength,

and

glory,

D a u g h t e r Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m is stripped o f h e r faith and o b e d i e n c e and led t o "forget Yahweh" (Isa 5 1 : 1 3 ) . A c c o r d i n g to the prophet, it is n o t Yahweh w h o has forgotten her ( 4 9 : 1 4 ) , but rather fear o f h u m a n power that has m a d e h e r forget Yahweh. Yahwehs goal is to transform Z i o n from the depths o f this l a m e n t in 4 9 : 1 4 to m a t c h the song o f praise o f all creation in 4 9 : 1 3 , and the e n d o f this section o f Isaiah ( 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 ; 5 4 : 1 - 1 7 ) will provide evidence o f such praise. T h e divine c o u n c i l s c e n e in 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 and the two i n t r o d u c t o r y la­ m e n t s in 4 0 : 2 7 and 4 9 : 1 4 structure Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 but also introduce the key motifs and characters that will d o m i n a t e its content. T h e challenges to the faith o f the exilic Jacob-Israel and Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m , that is, t h o s e religious and political challenges that arise from empire, are answered with a presentation o f the Holy O n e o f Israel, the a r m o f the Lord, the Servant Jacob-Israel, and D a u g h t e r Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m .

Holy One of

Israel

First, scattered t h r o u g h o u t this section o f Isaiah are consistent appeals to G o d as the "Holy O n e o f Israel." As already noted, Isaiah 6 - 3 9 speaks m u c h o f this "Holy One," an appellation that finds its source in Isaiahs initial call and mission in ch. 6 ( 6 : 3 ) . It dominates the c o n t e n t o f his message as the consistent t h e m e o n his lips (see 3 0 : 8 - 1 1 ) , is a repeated phrase o f the oracles in chs. 1 - 3 9 ( 1 : 4 ; 5 : 1 6 , 1 9 , 2 4 ; 1 0 : 1 7 , 2 0 ; 12:6; 17:7; 2 9 : 1 9 , 2 3 ; 3 0 : 1 2 , 1 5 ; 3 1 : 1 ; 3 7 : 2 3 ) , and represents the goal o f Isaiahs m i s ­ sion (to p r o d u c e a holy seed; 6 : 1 3 ) . T h e reference to "the H o l y O n e " in 4 0 : 2 5 is the last t i m e this t e r m is used o n its own in reference to Yahweh. F r o m there o n , "Holy O n e " is always a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n o t h e r element, identifying Yahweh as "Creator" o r " R e d e e m e r " and s o m e t i m e s b o t h . T h e Holy O n e o f Israel is the C r e a t o r o f the world ( 4 0 : 2 5 ; 4 1 : 2 0 ; 4 3 : 1 5 ; 4 5 : 1 1 ) , but is also the R e d e e m e r o f Israel ( 4 1 : 1 4 ; 4 3 : 3 ; 4 3 : 1 4 ; 4 7 : 4 ; 4 8 : 1 7 ; 4 9 : 7 a b ) . In 5 4 : 5 , for example, these two are intertwined. T h e consistent use o f this phrase "Holy O n e o f Israel" reveals the intricate link between this initial revelation o f G o d as the C r e a t o r in 4 0 : 1 2 - 3 1 and the revelation o f G o d as the Savior o f Israel from exile. As

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light

ofYahweh

the p r o p h e t speaks t o a generation in exile, e x p e r i e n c i n g great atrocities and pain in their lives, h e has the audacity to discuss theology. This is n o t a t h e o l o g y abstracted above their c i r c u m s t a n c e s , but o n e that invites an e n c o u n t e r o f faith b e t w e e n Israel a n d Yahweh. H e constantly returns to a t h e o l o g y o f r e d e m p t i o n a n d o f creation as the foundation for their life in the m i d s t o f their suffering.

Arm of the

Lord

The s e c o n d strategy for dealing with these challenges t o faith is the rev­ elation o f the "arm o f t h e Lord." Isaiah 4 1 - 4 8 (esp. chs. 4 3 - 4 8 ) increas­ ingly reveals the c o n t e x t that lies b e h i n d this contest b e t w e e n Yahweh and the idols. B a b y l o n is m e n t i o n e d in 4 3 : 1 4 where Yahweh promises t o m a k e this feared people "fugitives." Isaiah 4 4 : 2 8 and 4 5 : 1 , 1 3 m e n t i o n the figure o f Cyrus, w h o will b o t h subdue nations a n d restore Jerusalem a n d its temple. Isaiah 46:1 links the idolatry directly with the B a b y l o n i a n cult (Bel, N e b o ) a n d chs. 4 7 a n d 4 8 finally depict the destruction o f B a b y l o n and the flight o f "his servant Jacob" ( 4 8 : 2 0 ) from the city. Isaiah 4 1 - 4 8 l o o k s to the salvation that G o d will b r i n g to exilic Israel living u n d e r the i m p o s i n g power o f the B a b y l o n i a n religious cult. A l t h o u g h t h e message is m o s t l y focused o n e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d salva­ tion, there are warnings o f j u d g m e n t o n "rebels" within Israel w h o have b e e n e n t i c e d b y B a b y l o n i a n idolatry ( 4 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 ; 4 6 : 8 - 1 2 ; 4 8 : 1 - 2 2 ) . T h e true "citizens o f the h o l y city" w h o "rely o n the G o d o f Israel" ( 4 8 : 2 ) are t h o s e w h o "Leave B a b y l o n , flee from the Babylonians" ( 4 8 : 2 0 ) . B u t for the wicked,"there is n o peace" ( 4 8 : 2 2 ) . In this c o n t e x t the prophet reveals the "arm o f the L O R D , " a syn­ e c d o c h e for the military power o f Yahweh that develops t h r o u g h o u t this s e c t i o n o f Isaiah. It is introduced from the outset in Isa 4 0 : 1 0 in the message that was to b e delivered to the cities o f Judah: "with his a r m rul­ ing for him." It reappears in 5 1 : 1 - 8 as G o d promises " m y a r m will b r i n g j u s t i c e to t h e nations" ( 5 1 : 5 ) , a n d finally at the outset o f 5 1 : 9 — 5 2 : 6 , as the p r o p h e t arouses Yahweh to e n a c t salvation for captive Israel: "Awake, awake, Ο a r m o f the L O R D " ( 5 1 : 9 ) .

29

W h e n news reaches Z i o n o f G o d s victory, specific reference is m a d e to the "arm o f the L O R D " ( 5 2 : 1 0 ) , functioning as the c l i m a x o f this long series o f references to "arm" in chs. 4 0 - 5 5 . T h e recipient o f this a r m s 29. See the related image of the "hand" in 50:2 in the Disputation series (49:15— 50:11) as God reassures exilic Israel, "is my arm too short to save?"

7i

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

destructive power is identified in chs. 4 7 - 4 8 , which c l a i m that Yahweh will c a r r y out his pleasure on B a b y l o n , "his a r m against t h e C h a l d e a n s " (48:14). It is the "arm o f the L O R D , " then, that leads to t h e deliverance o f G o d s captive people—for they are i m m e d i a t e l y c o m m a n d e d in 5 2 : 1 1 12 to "Depart, Depart," a c o m m a n d r e m i n i s c e n t o f the flight from Egypt, but with emphasis o n the n e e d for ritual purity as t h e y leave unclean Babylon with its evil practices. This defeat o f Babylon and release o f Israel from captivity suggests t o m a n y the fulfillment o f Yahwehs prediction in Isa 4 4 : 2 8 and 4 5 : 1 - 3 , 13 c o n c e r n i n g Cyrus. Indeed, reference is m a d e in these prophecies to Cyrus's role in defeating m i g h t y kings ( 4 5 : 1 - 3 ) , freeing captives ( 4 5 : 1 3 ) , and restoring Z i o n ( 4 4 : 2 8 ; 4 5 : 1 3 ) . It appears, then, that within chs. 4 1 - 4 8 , Cyrus is closely associated with t h e fulfillment o f the a r m o f the L O R D against the Babylonians. However, while Cyrus takes t h e stage in chs. 4 1 - 4 8 , in chs. 4 9 - 5 5 the focus shifts to a n o t h e r figure, o n e called the "servant" w h o was first introduced in ch. 4 1 , but w h o s e c h a r a c t e r is progressively revealed t h r o u g h o u t chs. 4 1 - 5 5 .

3 0

This servant represents a

third strategy in Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 for dealing with these imperial challenges to faith.

Servant

of the

Lord

This servant is identified first as Jacob-Israel in Isa 41:8, that is, the e x ­ ilic c o m m u n i t y . In 4 2 : 1 - 7 the s e r v a n t s mission is identified as b r i n g i n g justice b y o p e n i n g the eyes o f t h e blind, freeing captives from prison, and releasing from the dungeon those in darkness. In addition o r p o s ­ sibly c o n n e c t e d with these actions o f justice, this Jacob-Israel servant is described as a "light" for t h e Gentiles and "a covenant for t h e people." Unfortunately, it is unclear in 4 2 : 6 what "people" were in view in this covenant. W a s this a reference to the Gentiles o r to Israelites? I f the for­ mer, then the Jacob-Israel servant would b e a group o r an individual reaching out to the Gentiles; i f the latter, then this servant must b e an individual or smaller group within the exilic c o m m u n i t y w h o would do s o m e t h i n g for the exiles. W h i l e Isaiah 4 2 is unclear, ch. 4 9 identifies t h e servant as o n e within Israel w h o will minister to Israel and o n Israels behalf. Isaiah 49:6 declares 30. Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah," sees a development but attributes this to a shift away from Cyrus who is the servant in chs. 40-48.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light

of

Yahweh

that this servant ( w h o is called Israel in 4 9 : 3 ) will "raise up the tribes o f Jacob" a n d "restore t h e preserved o n e s o f Israel," besides b r i n g i n g light to t h e Gentiles. Thus references to t h e dispensing o f justice a n d freeing people f r o m b o n d a g e refer to the function o f this servant in releasing exilic Israel f r o m b o n d a g e in t h e land o f their captivity. As m e n t i o n e d earlier, this hoped-for release appears to b e pre­ ceded b y t h e v i c t o r y o f G o d a n n o u n c e d in Isa 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 , w h i c h calls Z i o n ("ruins o f Jerusalem") to b r e a k into s o n g in 5 2 : 9 b e c a u s e "the L O R D has c o m f o r t e d his people, h e has r e d e e m e d Jerusalem." Therefore, this l o o k s to t h e fulfillment o f this n e w phase o f prophetic witness introduced b y Isa 40:1 ("comfort, c o m f o r t " ) a n d b y c r e a t i o n s praise in 4 9 : 1 3 ("Yahweh c o m f o r t s his people") a n d m e n t i o n e d regularly elsewhere in this s e c t i o n (51:3,12). W h a t is envisioned in 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 is the image o f messengers approach­ ing a city with n e w s o f a m o m e n t o u s military victory. T h e messengers e m e r g e f r o m the m o u n t a i n s a n d are spied first b y t h e watching guards o n the city walls, t h o s e responsible for allowing t h e messengers into the city to relay t h e n e w s o f victory. T h e v i c t o r y is followed b y t h e return o f t h e victorious k i n g to the cheers o f the city ( 5 2 : 8 : " W h e n the L O R D returns to Z i o n " ) . O n e c a n n o t m i s s t h e striking similarity b e t w e e n the v o c a b u l a r y found here in 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 and that found at the outset o f chs. 4 0 - 5 5 in 4 0 : 9 - 1 0 . In 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 the m e s s e n g e r to Z i o n (prophet) relays the message that Z i o n will relay in t u r n to t h e cities o f Judah. P r o p h e t i c voices n o w a n n o u n c e t h e v i c t o r y as messengers return­ ing f r o m a battle t h e y have observed. As t h e message c o m e s to Z i o n , "for­ saken" a n d "forgotten" in 4 9 : 1 4 , the message is simply "Your G o d reigns," t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m a n d yet related to the earlier "Here is your G o d " in 4 0 : 9 . This declaration is b a c k e d up b y t h e description o f battle in 5 2 : 1 0 : "Yahweh will lay b a r e his h o l y arm." E n t e r i n g n o w into 5 2 : 1 3 , the initial verse, w h i c h introduces t h e servant as "raised up, lifted up, exalted," is n o t surprising. T h e servant has b e e n included all along t h e way as integral to this redemption and salvation a n d n o w his role will b e clarified. In 4 9 : 1 - 1 2 it was t h e w o r k o f Yahweh t h r o u g h his servant that brought forth the praise o f all creation in 4 9 : 1 3 . This is n o w equated with the a r m o f the Lord, w h i c h is what brings forth t h e call t o Z i o n t o praise. B u t what is found in 5 2 : 1 4 a n d

EMPIRE IN T H EN E W TESTAMENT

following is s h o c k i n g . R a t h e r than the picture o f t r i u m p h a n t

destruc­

tion, the prophet is c o n f r o n t e d b y a portrait o f suffering a n d death. This is hardly t h e picture e x p e c t e d as t h e reader first e n c o u n t e r s t h e servant at the b e g i n n i n g o f Isaiah 4 2 . T h e r e o n e finds t h e presentation o f "my servant" O^QX? ] Π ) , strikingly r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e t e r m i n o l o g y h e r e in 5 2 : 1 3 C ^ D I ? Π3Π). In b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o is h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e servant h i m s e l f in 4 9 : 1 - 6 a n d 5 0 : 4 - 9 , explaining a n d d e s c r i b i n g G o d s c o m m i s s i o n (see esp. 4 9 : 3 : Π Π ί ^ Γ ^ Π ϋ ) . W h i l e it is clear that in every c a s e this servant figure will have an i m p a c t o n the G e n t i l e s (Isa 4 2 : 6 ; 4 9 : 6 ; 5 2 : 1 5 ) , o n e c a n see a d e v e l o p m e n t in the revelation o f t h e servant in t w o ways. First, there is an i n c r e a s i n g revelation o f a servant figure within t h e b r o a d e r c o n t e x t o f Israel, from ch. 4 2 with its u n c l e a r distinction b e t w e e n individual a n d c o m m u n i t y , to ch. 4 9 with t h e servant title a n d function clearly a t t a c h e d to b o t h c o m ­ m u n i t y ( 4 9 : 3 ) a n d individual ( 4 9 : 6 ) , t o ch. 5 0 with t h e servant addressing t h e c o m m u n i t y ( 5 0 : 1 0 ) , to chs. 5 2 - 5 3 with t h e focus o n the individual alone. A c c o m p a n y i n g this d e v e l o p m e n t is an increasing e m p h a s i s o n t h e suffering o f this servant figure from ch. 4 2 , w h i c h m e n t i o n s n o suffering, to ch. 4 9 , w h i c h provides a little insight ( 4 9 : 7 ) , to ch. 5 0 with its m e n t i o n o f beating, hair pulling, m o c k i n g , a n d spitting, to chs. 5 2 - 5 3 with their grotesque d e p i c t i o n .

31

In Isaiah 5 2 - 5 4 t h e r e is a creative dovetailing o f t h e i m a g e s o f the Servant a n d o f the a r m o f t h e Lord. E n c o u n t e r i n g this sight o f t h e suffer­ ing servant, the prophet queries: " W h o has believed o u r m e s s a g e a n d to w h o m has the a r m o f Yahweh b e e n revealed?" ( 5 3 : 1 ) . H e r e t h e prophet is given a g l i m p s e o f the identity o f t h e "arm o f Yahweh," that i m a g e o f t h e glorious a n d powerful return o f t h e sovereign L O R D w h o will c o n q u e r all t h r o u g h his servant, even t h o u g h all h e sees is the servant figure, suf­ fering b e y o n d description. T h e c o m f o r t i n g message for t h e c o m m u n i t y is that out o f t h e depth o f suffering will c o m e a t o n e m e n t for sin a n d salvation from exile. W i t h i n suffering exilic Israel t h e p r o p h e t sees o n e w h o suffers o n t h e i r b e h a l f and t h r o u g h h i m b r i n g s restoration to t h e nation. W h o w o u l d believe

31. This progression in the revelation of a servant figure who will do something for servant Israel and suffer, may be related to the concerns expressed in chs. 41-48. There the prophet reveals the condition of some within the present exilic Servant Israel whose trust in idols (42:17) has proven that they are still deaf and blind (42:18-20; cf. 6:9-10).

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

such a message? T o w h o m has such an a r m ever b e e n revealed? This is the s h o c k i n g c h a r a c t e r o f this prophetic witness. T h e a r m o f the L o r d t r i u m p h s ironically t h r o u g h t h e suffering o f the servant o n b e h a l f o f the rest o f t h e c o m m u n i t y and, a c c o r d i n g to Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 1 5 , even t h o s e outside the Jewish c o m m u n i t y .

Daughter

Zion-Jerusalem

W h i l e it was the l a m e n t o f the servant Jacob-Israel that first voiced the pain o f Israel in exile in Isa 4 0 : 2 7 , it is the voice o f Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m that e c h o e s this pain in 4 9 : 1 4 . A s n o t e d above, servant Jacob-Israel is the fo­ cus o f the address in Isa 4 0 : 1 2 — 4 9 : 1 3 , but in 4 9 : 1 4 — 5 4 : 1 7 addresses shift from Jacob-Israel t o Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m . T h e presentation o f this s e c ­ o n d figure develops t h r o u g h o u t chs. 4 9 - 5 5 .

3 2

She is first e n c o u n t e r e d

in 4 0 : 2 as o n e bereaved a n d in 4 9 : 1 4 as o n e barren. She cowers before h u m a n i t y ( 5 1 : 1 2 ) , d r u n k a n d vulnerable ( 5 1 : 1 7 ) . B u t Yahweh calls h e r to awake a n d leave h e r b o n d s ( 5 2 : 1 - 2 ) and rejoice, for her b a r r e n n e s s has b e e n r e m o v e d (ch. 5 4 ) . This development in the presentation o f Daughter Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m t h r o u g h o u t this s e c t i o n o f Isaiah brings this figure into close association with the figure o f Servant Jacob-Israel. This has b e e n described sensi­ tively b y Sawyer: In the dozen or so passages about Zion there is a clear progres­ sion, from abandonment, loneliness and fear to fulfillment and joy; and the same goes for the Servant whose fortunes are traced from a time when he is weak and afraid and feels like a worm (41.14) to heroic suffering and triumph in ch. 53. Neither story is told as a continuous narrative, but the plot and the characters in both cases are referred to sufficiently often and regularly for the progression and continuity to be maintained. 33

It is in Isaiah 5 2 - 5 4 that the a r m o f the Lord, Servant Jacob-Israel, a n d D a u g h t e r Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m are interlinked.

34

In Isaiah 5 4 Z i o n is called

32. See Biddle,"Lady Zions Alter Egos," for the way in which the Zion poems in chs. 49-55 play off of the Babylon poem in ch. 47. 33. Sawyer, "Daughter," 99. 34. Wilshire, "Servant-City"; Wilshire, "Jerusalem"; and Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 203-204, notice the close associations between Zion and the Servant and suggest that this means Zion is to be equated with the Servant figure. Hoppe, Holy City, 109, prob­ ably overstates his case when he compares Zion and the Servant in Second Isaiah and concludes that "Zion is the more significant figure."

75

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

t o burst into s o n g and shout for joy, t h e s a m e response that was c o m ­ m a n d e d o f h e r in 5 2 : 7 - 1 0 w h e n the a r m o f the L O R D w o r k e d salvation.

35

The v i c t o r y as well as the a r m a n d servant o f the L O R D o f c h s . 5 2 - 5 3 is directly related to the restoration o f t h e c o m m u n i t y to t h e land ( 5 4 : 2 - 3 , 7) b y t h e r e d e e m i n g H o l y O n e o f Israel, w h o is at t h e s a m e t i m e the "God

o f all t h e earth" ( 5 4 : 5 ) . T h e implications for Z i o n are clear as G o d

promises to rebuild and refortify the o n c e afflicted city a n d establish righteousness in h e r midst ( 5 4 : 1 4 ) .

36

T h e c r y o f Z i o n at the outset o f chs.

4 9 _ 5 5 ( 4 9 : 1 4 ) has b e e n answered t h r o u g h the revelation o f t h e a r m o f t h e L O R D expressed t h r o u g h t h e Servant J a c o b - I s r a e l .

37

This section o f Isaiah c o m e s to an e n d in ch. 5 5 with an invita­ tion to t h e c o m m u n i t y to "Seek Yahweh while h e m a y b e found, call o n h i m while he is near. Let t h e wicked forsake their way and t h e evil their thoughts. Let t h e m turn to Yahweh and h e will have m e r c y o n t h e m , and to o u r G o d , for h e will freely pardon" ( 5 5 : 6 - 7 ) .

3 8

T h e p r o m i s e o f G o d is

salvation from the suffering o f exile, but this c o m e s to t h o s e w h o repent and turn to h i m .

Isaiah

40-55

and

Empire

It is thus through the weakness o f a suffering figure, a suffering that atones for past transgressions, that Yahwehs empire is established o n earth at Z i o n . W h i l e there is a role for the Persian C y r u s to play in t h e release o f Israel suffering in exile, in the restoration o f destroyed Z i o n , and in the establishment o f Yahwehs universal reign (Isa 4 4 : 2 4 — 4 5 : 7 ) , it is the figure o f the suffering servant w h o a c c o m p l i s h e s all this a c c o r d i n g to chs. 5 2 - 5 4 . Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 thus c o n t i n u e s to evaluate empire negatively as a threat to the c o m m u n i t y and to call t h e c o m m u n i t y to trust in Yahweh rather than the political and religious potential o f the empire. At the 35. Although see Quinn-Miscall, Reading Isaiah, 201, who leaves the question of the identity of this woman in ch. 54 open. He says it could be Sarah or Hannah as well. 36. For superb reviews of Zion within Isaiah 40-55, see Ollenburger, Zion; Spykerboer,"Isaiah 55:1-5"; Webb,"Zion in Transformation"; Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 203; Clements, "Zion"; Hoppe, Holy City. Interesting is Wilshire, "Jerusalem." 37. This emphasis on Zion prompts Seitz to write: "it should be clear that concern over Zions final destiny stands in the foreground in chs. 49-55" (Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 205). 38. Wilson, Nations, 327-28, and Spykerboer,"Isaiah 55:1 -5," argue that the banquet of ch. 55 takes place in Zion.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

s a m e t i m e there is, at least initially, a positive evaluation o f t h e figure o f the Persian C y r u s w h o is raised up for Yahwehs purposes to b r i n g an e n d to t h e B a b y l o n i a n empire, restore his imperial city Z i o n a n d his people to t h e land, a n d b r i n g universal a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f his n a m e o n earth. As e m p i r e c o u l d b e used b y Yahweh to b r i n g p u n i s h m e n t o n an unfaith­ ful Judah ( c o m p a r e Isaiah 6 with Isaiah 3 9 ) , so empire c o u l d b e used b y Yahweh to b r i n g salvation to a faithful Judah. W h i l e t h e establishment o f Yahwehs imperial rule o n earth is closely associated with t h e v i c t o r y o f C y r u s in Isaiah 4 1 - 4 8 , this is n o t the case in Isaiah 4 9 - 5 5 . In these chapters t h e empire o f Yahweh is established t h r o u g h a figure suffering o n b e h a l f o f the c o m m u n i t y . This c o u n t e r t e s t i m o n y suggests at least a r e t i c e n c e to collapse t h e h o p e o f Israel into the realpolitik

o f t h e Persian empire, i f n o t an outright rejection o f initial 39

Persian i m p e r i a l realities. T h e v i c t o r y o f G o d is s o m e h o w c o n n e c t e d to exilic suffering, so that, in an ironic twist, it is Israels suffering at the h a n d s o f t h e nations that ultimately leads to t h e e m p i r e s loss o f power. This e c h o e s an i m p o r t a n t theological principle in J u d a h s reflection o n empire. F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g Yahwehs empire was to b e established n o t b y a powerful h u m a n king, but rather t h r o u g h a c o m m u n i t y that trusted in Yahweh. U n l i k e t h e nations with their m i g h t y kings to lead t h e m into battle, "weak" Israel was to trust Yahweh to win their battles.

ISAIAH 56-66 Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 l o o k s to a day w h e n the c o m m u n i t y will b e released from exile in B a b y l o n , a day that w o u l d b e m a d e possible initially t h r o u g h the a c t i o n s o f t h e t r i u m p h a n t Cyrus. T h e shift from Cyrus to Servant in t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f chs. 4 0 - 5 5 m a y suggest an audience disappointed b y t h e n e w Persian c o n t e x t . M a n y have noted, however, that with ch. 5 6 t h e reader m o v e s into a n e w literary as well as historical context. A signal o f t h e distinct c h a r a c t e r o f chs. 5 6 - 6 6 is found at the outset in 5 6 : 8 : The Sovereign LORD declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: "I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered." This prophecy, declaring t h e fulfillment o f M o s e s instruction in D e u t 3 0 : 4 that after t h e exile a penitent c o m m u n i t y would b e gathered 39. Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah," 195, relates this shift to the disappointment of the exilic community with Cyrus, resulting in a shift of his tasks to the exilic community and its prophets.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

from the nations, suggests that the target audience is t h o s e w h o are living in a p e r i o d w h e n exiles have already b e e n gathered from the nations, but there is an expectation o f still others yet to b e g a t h e r e d .

40

T h e earliest this

would b e is 5 3 9 B C E , at the b e g i n n i n g o f the Persian period, as Cyrus (cf. Isa 4 4 : 2 8 ; 4 5 : 1 , 1 3 ) defeats the Babylonians (cf. Isaiah 4 7 - 4 8 ) . This c o m ­ m u n i t y would begin t h e long and arduous process o f rebuilding the city o f Jerusalem and territory o f Judah. W h a t is envisioned here in Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 is life as the exilic n i g h t m a r e c o n t i n u e s after t h e first signs o f res­ toration hope. It targets a c o m m u n i t y for w h o m the early restoration did not live up to the expectations created by Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 , providing an explanation for t h e present realities while prophesying h o p e for the future o f the c o m m u n i t y and Z i o n .

Isaiah

41

56:3-8;

66:7-24

Setting the tone for all o f Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 are two sections that function as b o o k e n d s a r o u n d the entire c o l l e c t i o n .

42

Here is expressed a universal

vision, o n e in which the nations enter into relationship with a n d wor­ ship Yahweh. O n the o n e end, Isa 5 6 : 3 - 8 envisions t h e temple as a house o f prayer for foreigners w h o "bind themselves to Yahweh" in covenant relationship. O n the o t h e r e n d lies Isa 6 6 : 7 - 2 2 , whi ch describes h o w this will happen, as Yahweh invites all the nations to b e h o l d his glory and even uses s o m e o f the r e m n a n t to "proclaim m y glory a m o n g the n a ­ tions" ( 6 6 : 1 9 ) .

Isaiah

61:4-9

This universal vision o n b o t h ends o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n c a n also b e d i s c e r n e d in what is c o n s i d e r e d b y m o s t to b e "the n u c l e u s o f t h e collection"

43

in Isaiah 6 0 - 6 2 . At t h e c o r e o f this n u c l e u s is t h e s p e e c h

40. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66,297. 41. Clements, "Unity," 128, notes how the central concern of chs. 56-66 is with "Jerusalem, instead of the wider political entity of Israel." 42. Although I am skeptical of many chiastic theories, I have found the proposal of Polan (cf. Emmerson) convincing and follow it here with a little modification. Cf. Polan, Ways of Justice; Emmerson, Isaiah 56-66,20. See also chiastic proposals by Bonnard, he second Isaie, 318; Lack, La symbolique du livre dlsaie, 125-32. See the caution of Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 461-63 and Boda, "Chiasmus in Ubiquity." For a redactional theory of how this developed around the nucleus of chs. 60-62, see Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 296-308. 43. Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah," 198; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66,296. This nucleus

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

o f G o d in 6 1 : 4 - 9 . A l t h o u g h a large p o r t i o n o f c h . 6 1 is t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a figure a n o i n t e d b y Yahweh ( s e e b e l o w ) , w . 4 - 9 appears to b e a s p e e c h by Y a h w e h h i m s e l f ("I, t h e L O R D , " V. 8 ) . T h i s c e n t r a l s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the a n t i c i p a t e d b l e s s i n g t h a t t h e L O R D will b r i n g ; that is, i n t e r m s o f 5 6 : 1 - 2 , t h e salvation that "is c l o s e at h a n d " a n d t h e r i g h t e o u s n e s s that "will s o o n b e revealed." T h i s blessing is t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e r u i n s o f exile, t h e reversal o f roles so t h a t t h e n a t i o n s will n o w serve Israel, a n d t h e fulfillment o f I s r a e l s m i s s i o n t o b e "priests o f t h e L O R D . . . m i n i s ­ ters o f o u r God," a role that suggests special a c c e s s t o G o d s p r e s e n c e , b u t also a s p e c i a l role for t h e n a t i o n s ( E x o d 1 9 : 5 - 7 ) . F o u n d a t i o n a l to this n e w e r a is G o d s p r o m i s e in Isa 6 1 : 8 b that h e will m a k e "an ever­ lasting c o v e n a n t " with t h e m . C o v e n a n t s in I s r a e l s past ( A b r a h a m i c , Sinaitic, D a v i d i c , Priestly) c o n s i s t e n t l y p r o m i s e d b o t h t h e b l e s s i n g o f s e c u r e l a n d a n d a b u n d a n t progeny, t w o p r o m i s e s that are e c h o e d h e r e in w . 7 a n d 9 .

Isaiah

61:1-3,10-11

S u r r o u n d i n g this central divine s p e e c h p r o m i s i n g covenantal relation­ ship a n d blessing to G o d s people is placed t h e t e s t i m o n y o f an individual speaking o f his w o r k for a n d reward f r o m Yahweh, w h o is called at t h e b e g i n n i n g ( 6 1 : 1 ) a n d e n d ( 6 1 : 1 1 ) , Sovereign Yahweh. T h e identity o f this first p e r s o n figure is n o t clearly stated, b u t t h e role h e plays suggests that h e is t h e servant i n t r o d u c e d in Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 .

4 4

In 6 1 : 1 - 3 , the figure iden­

tifies his role, w h i c h is clearly o n e o f p r o c l a m a t i o n o f salvation to t h o s e w h o are afflicted, b r o k e n - h e a r t e d , captives, m o u r n i n g , a n d fainting. This p r o c l a m a t i o n will offer c o m f o r t and, in this way, c o n t i n u e s the role o f t h e c o m f o r t i n g p r o p h e t o f 4 0 : 1 . In 6 1 : 1 0 - 1 1 , the servant rejoices in his reward, describing h o w G o d has granted h i m the g a r m e n t o f salvation a n d r o b e s o f victory. It is t h e picture here o f a c o n q u e r o r returning from triumph. constitutes the continuity of thought with Isaiah 40-55. The fact that ch. 61 is domi­ nated by the voice of the Servantfigurewho speaks of his "anointing" suggests that ch. 61 functions as the two earlier prophetic "call" pieces in ch. 6 and ch. 40. 44. Although the term servant is not used in this section, this individual is not Yahweh himself (for he speaks about Yahweh/God in w. 1, 2, 3, 10,11 and is endued with the Spirit of Lord Yahweh in v. 1) and has the same calling and empowerment as the Servant of Yahweh in Isa 42:1-7 (see esp. v. 1: "I will put my Spirit on him," and v. 7: "to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness").

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Isaiah

60:1-22;

62:1-12

B r a c k e t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e servant are two a n n o u n c e m e n t s o f sal­ vation in Isaiah 6 0 a n d 6 2 . T h e s e represent the c o m f o r t i n g p r o c l a m a t i o n o f Yahwehs favor. T h e y b o t h speak to Z i o n - J e r u s a l e m a n d envision great splendor for h e r future with a p r o m i s e o f restoration. S u c h salvation is focused outward to influence the entire world. This is displayed vividly in the e c h o b e t w e e n 6 0 : 3 and 6 2 : 2 : 60:3 And 62:2 And

And nations will come to your light, kings to the brightness of your rising. And the nations will see your righteousness, all kings your glory.

These two passages highlight Z i o n o n c e again as the focus o f Yahwehs salvific purposes in t h e b o o k o f Isaiah. T h e salvation afforded Yahwehs people t h r o u g h the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f his servant in ch. 61 is intricately related to the restoration o f Z i o n as Yahwehs imperial c e n t e r o n earth.

Isaiah

59:15b-21;

63:1-6

S u r r o u n d i n g this theological c o r e o f chs. 56-66

are t h e two sections

5 9 : 1 5 b - 2 1 and 6 3 : 1 - 6 . A perusal o f t h e two passages reveals significant links between these two sections, confirmation o f their structural rela­ tionship (cf. 5 9 : 1 6 with 6 3 : 5 ; 5 9 : 1 7 with 6 3 : 3 - 4 ) . The servant figure in Isaiah 61 p r o c l a i m e d the restoration as a sign o f covenant renewal with Yahweh. This is the "favorable year o f the L O R D " as the a n n o u n c e m e n t s o f salvation in chs. 6 0 and 6 2 revealed. But t h e servant figure also spoke o f the "day o f v e n g e a n c e o f o u r God," and such a day is in view in these two sections. It is in 5 9 : 1 5 b - 2 1 a n d 6 3 : 1 - 6 that Yahweh d o n s the g a r m e n t s o f v e n g e a n c e to b r i n g j u d g m e n t o n his enemies. Yahweh as D i v i n e W a r r i o r is a p r o m i n e n t t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t the O l d Testament, b e g i n n i n g with his great v i c t o r y at the R e d Sea ( E x o d u s 1 5 ) , but also celebrated at regular intervals t h r o u g h o u t the O l d 4 5

Testament (e.g., D e u t e r o n o m y 3 3 ; H a b a k k u k 3 ) . This D i v i n e W a r r i o r battles against the nations (Isa 5 9 : 1 8 ; 6 3 : 6 ) bringing salvation to Z i o n ( 5 9 : 2 0 ) . It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e that such D i v i n e W a r r i o r activity is for the sake o f t h o s e w h o repent ( 5 9 : 2 0 ) and enter into t h e eternal covenant t h r o u g h the Spirit with Yahweh ( 5 9 : 2 1 ) . 45. See Miller, Divine Warrior; Kang, Divine War; Longman and Reid, God is a Warrior; Sherlock, God Who Fights.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light Isaiah

56:9—59:15a;

of

Yahweh

81

63:7—66:6

The qualification that salvation is afforded t h o s e w h o repent suggests that all is n o t well with t h e audience o f Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 . T o this point, this section o f Isaiah has stressed Yahwehs role as D i v i n e W a r r i o r p r o c l a i m e d by his S e r v a n t to restore an eternal covenant with Israel. F u r t h e r m o r e , emphasis has b e e n placed o n t h e ultimate global i m p a c t o f this renewed c o m m u n i t y a n d city. T h e r e m a i n i n g sections o f chs. 5 6 - 6 6 , however, reveal that there are serious challenges in t h e present life o f t h e c o m ­ m u n i t y that n e e d to b e dealt with in order for t h e m to e x p e r i e n c e t h e glories o f a restoration with c o s m i c significance. In two prophetic litur­ gies (Isa 5 9 : 1 - 1 5 a ; 6 3 : 7 — 6 4 : 1 1 )

4 6

t h e frustrated people ask in t h e midst

o f t h e o n g o i n g frustration o f exile: "Why, G o d ? W h e r e are y o u ? "

47

And

the answer f r o m G o d in 5 6 : 9 — 5 8 : 1 4 a n d 6 5 : 1 — 6 6 : 6 is that the question is not, " W h e r e is G o d ? " b u t rather, " W h e r e is his people?" B o t h o f these sections, first o f all, emphasize that n e i t h e r Yahweh n o r his worship is limited to t h e temple. S e c o n d , b o t h sections teach that t h e worship o f Yahweh extends into t h e hearts o f t h e truly h u m b l e a n d contrite, that is, t h o s e "who t r e m b l e at m y word." T h o s e w h o exemplify o r r e s p o n d to this message will e x p e r i e n c e t h e full restoration for w h i c h t h e y long, a restored temple, city, a n d c o m m u n i t y , a n d even better, t h e y will see t h e ultimate p u r p o s e o f Servant Israel fulfilled, w h i c h is t h e transformation o f the n a t i o n s into c o m m u n i t i e s o f worship at Yahwehs t h r o n e in Z i o n .

Isaiah

56-66

and

Empire

The c o r e o f Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 a n n o u n c e s to t h e Persian p e r i o d c o m m u n i t y that G o d will r e n e w relationship with his people, restoring b o t h land a n d progeny to t h e o n c e exiled a n d d e c i m a t e d people a n d giving t h e m t h e role o f b r i n g i n g light t o t h e Gentiles. This is p r o c l a i m e d b y the Servant as t h e "favorable year o f Yahweh" a n d t h e "day o f v e n g e a n c e o f o u r God," a day w h i c h will b e e n a c t e d b y Yahweh h i m s e l f as D i v i n e Warrior. Representative o f this renewal o f t h e c o m m u n i t y will b e a restoration o f Z i o n s g l o r y a n d Z i o n s role (first i n t r o d u c e d in Isa 2 : 1 - 5 a n d 4 : 2 - 6 ) as G o d s imperial capital o n e a r t h .

48

46. Boda, "From Complaint to Contrition," see esp. 192. 47. Much like what was seen in the study of Isaiah 40-55 above, especially in the laments of 40:27 and 49:14. 48. On the significant role of Zion tradition in Isaiah 56-66, see Roberts, "Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," 141. Many have noted connections between Isaiah 1-5

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

W h i l e imperial figures a n d nations are explicitly m e n t i o n e d in Isaiah 6 - 3 9 and 4 0 - 5 5 , chs. 5 6 - 6 6 m a k e n o m e n t i o n o f h u m a n e m ­ pire, speaking usually in m o r e g e n e r i c t e r m s o f nations a n d kings, and referring in passing to smaller political entities ( 6 0 : 6 - 7 ; 6 3 : 1 ; 6 6 : 1 0 ) . A l t h o u g h h u m a n empire is certainly existent in this period, b y ignoring it the prophet implies its irrelevance. Instead, Yahweh declares that since there was n o o n e else at h a n d to intervene, h e h i m s e l f would achieve salvation for Z i o n ( 5 9 : 1 6 ; 6 3 : 5 ) . T h e r e is also n o m e n t i o n o f a future Davidic royal figure, a n d at o n e point Z i o n s e e m s to a s s u m e t h e position o n c e held b y t h e Davidic line. Isaiah 6 2 : 1 2 declares that any nation p i } ) that does not serve ( 1 3 X 7 ) Z i o n will surely perish

C"QN),

vocabulary

strikingly similar to t h e w a r n i n g found in Ps 2 : 1 1 - 1 2 c o n c e r n i n g the nations and their submission to Yahweh and the Davidic king. A l t h o u g h this section does speak in m a n y places o f an earthly Jerusalem, there are indications at t i m e s that the empire in view is o n e that will b e administered from a heavenly Z i o n . vision o f Isaiah 6 ,

5 0

49

Playing off the initial

Isa 5 7 : 1 5 records t h e word o f the "high a n d exalted

one, the o n e w h o lives forever, w h o s e n a m e is holy" as: "I dwell o n a high and holy place, a n d with the contrite a n d lowly o f spirit." Standing in t h e way o f this vision for c o m m u n i t y and Z i o n , h o w ­ ever, is the enduring rebellion o f a people w h o s e patterns o f behavior e c h o t h o s e o f Z i o n the b a d in Isaiah 1 - 5 .

51

T h e c r y o f the prophet reveals

that although t h e restoration is s o m e t h i n g that only the D i v i n e W a r r i o r Yahweh can enact, such divine a c t i o n is dependent o n a penitential

and Isaiah 65-66: see Liebreich, "Isaiah 1" and "Isaiah 2"; Carr, "Reaching for Unity"; Sweeney, Isaiah 1-4; Emmerson, Isaiah 56-66, 37-39. Tomasino, "Isaiah 1:1—2:4 and 63-66," argues that 63:7—66:24 were created based on 1:1 —2:4. 49. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 298, reflects this tension in this section of Isaiah when he claims that "the salvation which Trito-Isaiah proclaims is conceived in terms of this world . . . still tied to the realm of history," and yet also speaks of "a few passages which do go beyond this, and where the salvation promised has traits incompatible with the realm of history." What Porteous,"Jerusalem-Zion," 248, calls "a transcendental reality"; cf. also 65:17-19 where new heavens and earth are closely associated with new Jerusalem. 50. See Williamson, Isaiah, 38-39. 51. In a brilliant essay, Biddle,"Lady Zions Alter Egos," 124-39, shows how Isaiah 57 reveals that Zions alter ego has reappeared and that she is then doomed to the same fate as Babylon in Isaiah 48. The only hope is a "New Jerusalem." As Babylon fell, so must the harlot Zion. Jerusalem will not be restored, but replaced: a new heaven, a new earth, a new Jerusalem.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

response f r o m t h e people. T h e t o n e o f this final section e c h o e s in a t h e ­ m a t i c way t h e t o n e o f t h e initial s e c t i o n o f Z i o n . U n d i m i n i s h e d is t h e h o p e for Z i o n to realize its role as Yahwehs imperial capital o n earth.

CONCLUSION Isaiah 1-5 expresses an imperial h o p e for a Z i o n to w h i c h t h e nations will s t r e a m a n d from w h i c h t h e law will go forth. F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g the reader e n c o u n t e r s grave challenges t o this vision. In chs. 6 - 3 9 o n e o b ­ serves t h e struggles that t o o k place in Z i o n as A h a z a n d Hezekiah were challenged t o trust in Yahweh against superior imperial forces. Chapters 4 0 - 5 5 present t h e struggle o f Z i o n in exile, dwarfed b y t h e empire in w h i c h t h e y lived, a n d learning to trust Yahweh a n d reject foreign reli­ gious a n d political power. A n d , finally, chs. 5 6 - 6 6 depict t h e c o m m u n i t y in t h e wake o f t h e B a b y l o n i a n exile, struggling with a restoration that fell short o f earlier ideals while l o o k i n g for Z i o n to serve its role a m o n g the nations. T h r o u g h all o f t h i s t h e p r o p h e t i c witness calls t h e p e o p l e o f G o d to believe Y a h w e h s i m p e r i a l v i s i o n r a t h e r t h a n that o f t h e n a t i o n s , typified b y t h e invitation t o J a c o b in Isa 2:5 t o "walk in t h e light o f t h e L O R D . " I n t h e m o n a r c h i a l age t h e k i n g s a n d p e o p l e were n o t t o a d o p t t h e values o f h u m a n e m p i r e with its focus o n p o l i t i c a l alliance a n d m i l i t a r y p r e p a r a t i o n . I n s t e a d t h e y w e r e t o trust Yahweh as t h e e m p e r o r who would protect them. But the performance o f the Davidic kings was d i s a p p o i n t i n g , a n d after c h . 3 9 t h e r e is a decisive shift away f r o m this royal l i n e . After c h . 3 9 , n o t o n l y is t h e D a v i d i c l i n e i g n o r e d , b u t its prerogatives are shifted t o o t h e r s ( C y r u s in 4 5 : 1 , t h e c o m m u n i t y in 5 5 : 3 - 5 ) , a n d Y a h w e h is explicitly identified as k i n g ( 4 1 : 2 1 ; 4 3 : 1 5 ; 44:6).

5 2

F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l dating o f p r o p h e t i c m a t e r i a l

a c c o r d i n g t o h u m a n k i n g s h i p is a b a n d o n e d as t h e reader enters t h e i m p e r i a l D i v i n e C o u n c i l , w h i c h sets t h e t o n e for this n e w p h a s e (Isa 4 0 : 1 - 1 1 ; cf. Isaiah 6 ) .

5 3

52. See Roberts,"Isaiah in Old Testament Theology," 140-41; Williamson, Variations, 122-25, and especially Sweeney, "Reconceptualization." Such a shift also can be dis­ cerned at the end of Chronicles: see Boda, "Identity and Empire." 53. Contra Childs, Introduction, 332, who argues that the lack of superscriptions places the oracles in chs. 40-66 in the historical context of the eighth-century prophet. I find Seitz s description of the divine council as the "theological provenance" of Second Isaiah as helpful; cf. Seitz, Zions Final Destiny, 206.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

In the exilic age (Isaiah 4 0 - 5 5 ) , the people were n o t to accept t h e e m p i r e s definition o f their status as v i c t i m s unable to survive imperial might.

54

Instead t h e y were to trust Yahweh w h o p r o m i s e d to bring an

end to B a b y l o n i a n imperial abuse. In Isaiah 4 0 - 4 8 Yahweh p r o m i s e s to w o r k through his a n o i n t e d figure Cyrus, but a c c o r d i n g to Isaiah 4 9 - 5 5 , the v i c t o r y o f Yahweh is to b e e n a c t e d through the suffering servant. In an ironic twist, it is t h r o u g h suffering that Yahweh b r i n g s his v i c t o r y o n earth. Here o n e c a n discern a trend similar to Isaiah 6 - 3 9 . W h e r e a s a k e y h u m a n royal figure initially carries out Yahwehs imperial will (Hezekiah, Cyrus), in the e n d these efforts prove disappointing.

55

This casts c o n s i d ­

erable doubt over the ability o f h u m a n empire to fully a c c o m p l i s h the will o f Yahweh. It is this skepticism that m a y explain the a b s e n c e o f any h o p e placed o n h u m a n empire in t h e final phase o f Isaiah (chs. 56-66).

At the core

o f this collection (chs. 6 0 - 6 2 ) J e r u s a l e m r e m a i n s as "the political and religious center o f the world, a circle o f bright light s u r r o u n d e d b y the darkness in w h i c h the nations languish."

56

B u t emphasis is placed in this

section o n Yahwehs direct intervention to secure his imperial v i c t o r y and o n the role o f the h u m b l e servant in p r o c l a i m i n g Yahwehs v i c t o ­ rious deliverance. T h e seat o f this divine e m p e r o r appears to b e m o r e distanced from a physical J e r u s a l e m . E c h o i n g the introduction to the b o o k as a whole (Isaiah 1 - 5 ) , the people are called to o b e d i e n c e in order that Z i o n m a y truly reflect the glory o f its emperor. Thus t h e b o o k o f Isaiah ends with strong invitations to o b e d i e n c e in order that Z i o n m a y truly realize its potential a m o n g the nations. Isaiah represents an extensive t e s t i m o n y to Israels reflection o n empire. T h e b o o k as a whole struggles over the imperial ideals o f Z i o n as the seat o f Yahwehs rule o n earth, a picture presented at the outset o f the b o o k in chs. 1 - 5 . Fulfillment o f this role as imperial capital would m e a n trust in Yahweh in the face o f the great k i n g d o m s o f the world, a t h e m e that is consistent t h r o u g h o u t the entire b o o k . Ultimately Yahwehs i m p e ­ rial reign is established, n o t b y the m i g h t o f Israel n o r ultimately through the Persian Cyrus, but rather t h r o u g h the suffering o f Yahwehs servant, which will p r o m p t Yahwehs direct intervention in history.

54. See Brueggemann, "At the Mercy of Babylon." 55. Blenkinsopp, "Second Isaiah." 56. Ibid., 198.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

A l t h o u g h c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e b r o a d e r Z i o n tradition, probably Porteous captured long ago t h e development o f the imperial t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t t h e b o o k o f Isaiah w h e n h e wrote: In Israel there was a unique, though not a complete, break with the compact symbolism of the ancient imperialisms. Israel became aware of the dimension of the transcendent, but had to accom­ modate itself to life in a world of increasing complication. This is the [eternal] problem of the Church in the world, the problem of the life which has to be lived in unrelaxing tension. We have been watching the process in the Old Testament by which Jerusalem, the chosen city of God, not just the chosen city of David, gradu­ ally gave its name as a symbol of the transcendent action of God in creating a people for himself in the world, that is, in bringing in his Kingdom. The Old Testament made a wonderful beginning but it had to be left to the New Testament to complete the story. 57

This "completion o f t h e story" b e g i n s with a m a n in a synagogue in Nazareth w h o would read Isaiah 6 1 (that nucleus o f Isaiah 5 6 - 6 6 ) , a n n o u n c i n g t h e inauguration o f t h e realization o f this vision o f Z i o n and the k i n g d o m o f G o d . As Servant h e would suffer for exilic Israel a n d in h i m s e l f realize the function o f Israel a m o n g t h e nations. A n d as I m m a n u e l h e would r e m i n d a c o m m u n i t y living u n d e r R o m a n h e g e m o ­ ny that Yahweh was their o n l y h o p e for release from imperial b o n d a g e . W h e n Jesus read from t h e scroll o f Isaiah, h e stopped halfway t h r o u g h a s e n t e n c e , laying d o w n the scroll after a n n o u n c i n g "the favorable day o f t h e L o r d " a n d before declaring "the day o f v e ngeance o f our G o d " (Luke 4 : 1 4 - 1 9 ) . I n this h e was inaugurating his n e w era o f salvation and restoration ("the favorable day o f t h e L o r d " ) , but p r o m i s e d to return o n e day as D i v i n e W a r r i o r (Revelation 19) to usher in the "day o f vengeance o f o u r God." P r o m p t e d b y t h e b o o k o f Isaiah, during this "favorable day o f t h e L o r d " t h e c h u r c h is to live purely in b o t h worship a n d ethics as she takes o n t h e role o f the Servant b y declaring G o d s glory a m o n g the nations (Acts 1 3 : 4 6 - 4 8 ) , even t h r o u g h suffering (1 Pet 2 : 2 0 - 2 5 ) .

57. Porteous, "Jerusalem-Zion," 250.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, Peter R. "Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of 2 Kings 20, Isaiah 38-39." SJT 27 (1974) 329-52. Ackroyd, Peter R. "Isaiah 36-39: Structure and Function." In "The Place Is Too Small for Us": The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, edited by Robert P. Gordon, 478-94. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Begg, Christopher T. "Babylon in the Book of Isaiah." In The Book of Isaiah—Le livre dlsa'ie: Les oracles et leur relectures. Unite et complexite de Ibuvrage, edited by Jacques Vermeylen, 121-25. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Biddle, Mark E. "Lady Zions Alter Egos: Isaiah 47:1-15 and 57:6-13 as Structural Counterparts." In New Visions of Isaiah, edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 123-39. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism " In The Prophets, edited by Philip R. Davies, 186-206. Biblical Seminar 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993, reprint from JSOT 41 (1988) 83-103. Boda, Mark J. "Chiasmus in Ubiquity: Symmetrical Mirages in Nehemiah 9." JSOT 71 (1996)55-70. . 1-2 Chronicles. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 5A. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010. . "From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1 —15,4." ΖAW 113 (2001) 186-97. . Haggai/Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. . "Identity and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chroniclers Perspective." In Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Gary Knoppers and Ken Ristau, 249-72. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. . "Ottering Precious Rather than Worthless Words': Divine Patience and Impatience with Lament in Isaiah and Jeremiah. In Lament: Israels Cry to God, edited by Mark J. Boda, Carol Dempsey, and LeAnn Snow Flesher. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. London: Continuum, forthcoming. Bonnard, Pierre Ε. Le second Isaie, son disciple et leurs editeurs: Isaie 40-66. Etudes bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972. Brueggemann, Walter. "At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the Empire." JBL 110(1991) 3-22. . "Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition." JSOT 29 (1984) 89-107. Carr, David M. "Reaching for Unity in Isaiah."/SOT 57 (1993) 61-80. -. "Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65-66): Multiple Modern Possibilities." In New Visions of Isaiah, edited by Roy E. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 188-218. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. . Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001. Clements, Ronald E. "Beyond Tradition-History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiahs Ihernes."/SOT 10 (1985) 95-113, reprinted in The Prophets, edited by Philip R. Davies, 128-146. Biblical Seminar 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. . "The Unity of the Book of Isaiah." Int 36 (1982) 117-29.

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of .

Yahweh

. "Zion as Symbol and Political Reality: A Central Isaianic Quest." In Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrifl Willem A Μ Beuken. Edited by J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, 3-17. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997. Coggins, Richard J. "Do We Still Need Deutero-Isaiah?" JSOT 81 (1998) 77-92. Conrad, Edgar W Reading Isaiah. OBT 27. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Cross, Frank M."The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah."/NES 12 (1953) 274-77. Davies, Graham I. "The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah." In The Book of Isaiah—Le livre dTsaie: Les oracles et leurs relecteurs: Unite et complexite de louvrage, edited by Jacques Vermeylen, 93-120. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Dow, Lois Fuller. Images of Zion: Biblical Antecedents for the New Jerusalem. New Testament Monographs 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Dumbrell, W. J."The Purpose of the Book of Isaiah." TynBul 36 (1985) 111-28. Emmerson, Grace I. Isaiah 56-66. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Evans, Craig A. "On the Unity and Parallel Structure of Isaiah." VT 38 (1988) 129-47. Fohrer,Georg."Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkundigung Jesajas."ZAW74 (1962) 251-80. Hess, Richard S., and Gordon J. Wenham, editors. Zion, City of Our God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hoppe, Leslie J. The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 2000. Kang, S.-M. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Kaplan, Mordecai M. "Isaiah 6:1 -11." JBL 45 (1926) 251 -59. Lack, Remi. La symbolique du livre dTsaie: Essai sur Vimage litteraire comme element de structuration. Analecta Biblica 59. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. . "Zion Traditions." In ABD 6:1098-1102. Liebreich, Leon J. "The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah, 1." JQR 46 (1955-1956) 25977. . "The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah, 2." JQR 47 (1956-1957) 114-38. Lipschitz, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Longman, Tremper, and Daniel G. Reid. God is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Mays, James Luther. "Isaiah's Royal Theology and the Messiah." In Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, edited by Christopher R. Seitz, 39-51. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Milgrom, Jacob. "Did Isaiah Prophesy during the Reign of Uzziah?" VT 14 (1964) 16482. Miller, P. D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. . The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

"The Nations in Isaiah: Friend or Foe; Servant or Partner?" Bulletin of Biblical Research 16(2006)41-51. Polan, Gregory J. In the Ways of Justice toward Salvation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 56-59. American University Studies. Series VII, Theology and Religion 13. New York: Peter Lang, 1986. Porteous, Norman W. "Jerusalem-Zion: The Growth of a Symbol" In Verbannung und Heimkehr (Rudolph Festschrift), edited by Arnulf Kuschke, 235-52. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961. Quinn-Miscall, Peter D. Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Rendtorff, Rolf. "Jesaja 6 im Rahmen der Komposition des Jesajabuches." In The Book of Isaiah—Le livre d'Isaie: Les oracles et leurs relecteurs: Unite et complexite de Ibuvrage, edited by Jacques Vermeylen, 73-82. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Roberts, J. J. M."Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition."/BL 92 (1973) 329-44. . "Isaiah in Old Testament Theology" Int 36 (1982) 130-43. . "Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire." In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays, International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 1979, edited by Tomoo Ishida, 93-108. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Sawyer, John F. A. "Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison." JSOT 44 (1989) 89-107. . The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Seitz, Christopher R. "Isaiah 1 -66: Making Sense of the Whole." In Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, edited by Christopher R. Seitz, 105-26. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. . Zions Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah—A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Sherlock, Charles. The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in the Holy Scripture. Rutherford Studies in Contemporary Theology 6. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1993. Spykerboer, H. C. "Isaiah 55:1-5: The Climax of Deutero-Isaiah. An Invitation to Come to the New Jerusalem" In The Book of Isaiah—Le livre dTsate: Les oracles et leur relectures. Unite et complexite de Ibuvrage, edited by Jacques Vermeylen, 357-59. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Stansell, Gary. "Isaiah 28-33: Blest Be the Tie That Binds (Isaiah Together)." In New Visions of Isaiah, edited by Roy R Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 68-103. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. "The Book of Isaiah as Prophetic Torah." In New Visions of Isaiah, edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, 50-67. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. . Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988. . "The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah." In Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A Μ Beuken, edited by J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, 41-61. Leuven: Leuven University Press 1997. Tomasino, Anthony J. "Isaiah 1:1—2:4 and 63-66, and the Composition of the Isaianic Corpus " JSOT (1993) 81-98. m

B O D A — W a l k i n g in the Light of

Yahweh

Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Webb, Barry G. "Zion in Transformation: A Literary Approach to Isaiah." In The Bible in Three Dimensions, edited by David J. A. Clines, Stephen Fowl, and Stanley Ε. Porter, 65-84. JSOTSup 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Weinfeld, Moshe. "Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia." In The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism, edited by Richard Ε. Friedman, 75-115. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiahs Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford/New York: Clarendon/Oxford University Press, 1994. —. Variations on a Theme: King Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah. Didsbury Lectures 1997. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. Wilshire, Leland Ε. "Jerusalem as the 'Servant City in Isaiah 40-66: Reflections in the Light of Further Study of the Cuneiform Tradition." In The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III, edited by William W Hallo, Bruce W. Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly, 231-55. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies. Lewiston,NY: Mellen, 1990. . "Servant-City: A New Interpretation of the Servant of the Lord in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah."/BL 94 (1975) 356-67. Wilson, Andrew. The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study on Composition and Structure. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 1. Queenston, ON: Mellen, 1986.

3

Matthew and Empire

WARREN

I

CARTER

B E G I N W I T H S O M E reflections o n m e t h o d , a f u n d a m e n t a l issue in e x ­ 1

2

ploring h o w t h e G o s p e l s o f M a t t h e w a n d M a r k negotiate t h e R o m a n

E m p i r e . I identify five m e t h o d s that have either rendered this negotiation invisible o r significantly m i s - o r under-represented it. I then outline a multi-layered approach c o m p r i s i n g cultural intertextuality that provides access to t h e Gospels' imperial negotiation. I n Part 2 o f the paper I e m ­ ploy this multivalent approach to e x a m i n e four d i m e n s i o n s o f M a t t h e w s imperial negotiation. M y a r g u m e n t is that t h e R o m a n E m p i r e c o m p r i s e s n o t t h e N e w Testament b a c k g r o u n d but its foreground. M a t t h e w a n d M a r k are works o f imperial negotiation. T h e y tell t h e story o f Jesus crucified b y t h e E m p i r e b e c a u s e h e challenges its power, yet h e is raised b y G o d thereby revealing t h e limits o f R o m a n power a n d t h e sovereign power o f G o d . T h e y negotiate Rome's power through a self-protective yet contestive ap­ p r o a c h that offers a (largely) alternative (though in part also imitative) worldiew a n d social e x p e r i e n c e lived out in t h e practices o f t h e c o m ­ m u n i t y o f Jesus' followers (ecclesiology).

1. Carter, Matthew and the Margins; Riches and Sim, eds., Matthew in Imperial Context; Mowery, "Son of God." Space prevents a rich documentation of many of the issues raised by this paper; readers can find support and elaboration in my previous publications. 2. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story; Liew, Politics of Parousia; Myers, Binding the Strong Man.

90

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

91

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON M E T H O D O n e o f t h e reasons that imperial matters have c o m e to t h e fore in recent Gospel studies involves the selection o f m e t h o d s . At least five m e t h o d s have either rendered the G o s p e l s imperial negotiation invisible o r m i s ­ represented it. S o for example, the arguably d o m i n a n t

contemporary

h e r m e n e u t i c c o m p r i s i n g interiorized and spiritualized Bible reading focuses o n individual needs and personal discipleship. It scarcely has c o n t e m p o r a r y politics, societal structures, and empires o n its radar, let alone a n c i e n t ones. Its frequent e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f ready c o m p l i a n c e or submission does n o t encourage the systemic analysis and c o m m u n a l focus n e c e s s a r y to engage matters o f imperial power. S e c o n d , m u c h historical-critical w o r k has viewed t h e G o s p e l s as religious texts, in the case o f Matthew, c o n s t r u c t i n g and e x a m i n i n g "re­ ligious" conflicts b e t w e e n t h e G o s p e l and another religious group, the synagogue "down the street," and debating w h e t h e r M a t t h e w should b e 3

classified as Christian Judaism o r Jewish Christianity. This "religiononly" approach has failed to take a c c o u n t o f various factors that b e c a u s e o f space c a n only b e n a m e d here: D i a s p o r a synagogues were n o t pri­ marily o r exclusively religious c o m m u n i t i e s ; t h e y were n o t insular s o ­ 4

cietal entities; synagogues were involved in negotiating the empire; t h e Gospel's story o f the death o f its m a i n character b y crucifixion signals a fundamental conflict with t h e religiously-sanctioned, p o l i t i c a l - e c o n o m ­ ic-societal entity o f R o m e s empire; the so-called "religious leaders" in the G o s p e l s were allies, supporters, and beneficiaries o f R o m e s empire; and t h e G o s p e l shapes disciples w h o are c o m m i t t e d to o n e crucified b y the empire yet raised b y G o d . W h i l e M a t t h e w has often b e e n viewed as t h e "Jewish" G o s p e l , any understanding o f that t e r m that o m i t s these factors o r understands it to b e in s o m e way antithetical to o r u n t o u c h e d by imperial matters is simply inadequate. Third, w h e n R o m e s empire has b e e n in view, persecution

has

s o m e t i m e s figured p r o m i n e n t l y in s o m e reconstructions. N o evidence, though, supports a view that t h e empire subjected late

first-century

fol­

lowers o f Jesus to daily, life-or-death persecution. Moreover, fourth, the relegation o f t h e empire to "New Testament b a c k g r o u n d s " has failed to recognize the d o m i n a n t socio-political,

3. Carter,"Matthews Gospel." 4. Barclay, Jews.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

cultural, and religious force at t h e foreground o f the first-century world, and m a s k e d significant interactions between it and Jesus-centered communities. And

fifth,

while "church-and-state-in-the-New-Testament"

ap­

p r o a c h e s at least r e c o g n i z e that there m a y b e s o m e interaction b e t w e e n 5

"church" a n d "state," this language reflects c o n t e m p o r a r y questions m o r e t h a n first-century imperial realities. A n d the approach, typically discuss­ ing o n l y passages that explicitly refer to governing powers, is patchy, fails to engage the w h o l e G o s p e l , and does not e x p o s e imperial structures and d y n a m i c s in w h i c h t h e texts participate. The inability o f these five approaches to adequately engage the c o m p l e x question o f t h e various relationships between the G o s p e l s and the E m p i r e necessitates o t h e r approaches. A multi-layered o r inter-disciplinary approach—perhaps best de­ s c r i b e d as cultural intertextuality—enables access to various d i m e n s i o n s 6

o f the interaction b e t w e e n G o s p e l texts a n d the imperial world. Julia Kristeva describes cultural intertextuality as locating a text "within (the text o f ) s o c i e t y and history." This approach involves placing these specific G o s p e l texts "within the general text (culture) o f which [they are] a part 7

and w h i c h is in turn part o f [ t h e m ] . " T o locate these G o s p e l texts within the text o f their s o c i e t y a n d history requires a six-fold approach c o m p r i s ­ ing historical studies, classical and archeological studies, s o c i a l - s c i e n c e m o d e l s , insights from cultural anthropology, post-colonial approaches, and forms o f literary c r i t i c i s m (audience-oriented and narrative stud­ ies). I e m p l o y this multi-disciplinary approach along with m y own e x p e ­ r i e n c e o f growing up in a c o l o n y o f the former British E m p i r e . O n e starting point for this interdisciplinary approach involves analysis o f likely daily c o n d i t i o n s within the empire e x p e r i e n c e d b y Jesus-followers. T h e p r o v e n a n c e o f neither M a t t h e w n o r M a r k is clear. Scholars have suggested R o m e and Galilee for M a r k s Gospel. I have argued elsewhere that A n t i o c h - o n - t h e - O r o n t e s , the provincial capital o f the R o m a n p r o v i n c e o f Syria, provides a possible p r o v e n a n c e for Matthew, t h o u g h n o certainty is possible.

8

5. For example, Pilgrim, Uneasy Neighbors, 37-124. 6. Limits of space mean a focus predominantly on Matthews Gospel. For broader discussion, see Carter, Roman Empire. 7. Kristeva, "Bounded Text," 36-37. 8. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 14-17.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

93

I f we a s s u m e at least s o m e viability for A n t i o c h as a possible prov­ e n a n c e o f M a t t h e w s Gospel, we c a n b e g i n to delineate s o m e t h i n g o f t h e daily imperial realities in w h i c h followers o f Jesus lived their discipleship. R o m a n p o w e r was evident in A n t i o c h and s u r r o u n d i n g areas in various material a n d systemic ways: administrative and public build­ ings, statues a n d gates, p e r s o n n e l like the emperor-appointed governor and his administration, several legions o f soldiers (Josephus, Ant. 1 8 . 1 ; J.W. 7 . 5 8 - 5 9 ) , c o n t r o l o f land and resources, alliances with local elites, coins, taxes, temples, a n d civic celebrations o f t h e imperial cult involving sacrifices, prayers, offerings, processions, games, street-parties, and dis­ 9

tributions. A n t i o c h was a marshaling area for t h e troops o f the R o m a n general Vespasian ( e m p e r o r from 6 9 t o 7 9 C E ) for t h e Judean war o f 6 6 to 7 0 C E (Josephus, J.W. 3.8, 2 9 ) . Syria was a source o f grain a n d o t h e r necessities levied for his son T i t u s s a r m y (Josephus, J.W. 5 . 5 2 0 ) . Capta

Judea

c o i n s with images o f defeated Judeans circulated there after t h e

defeat o f 7 0 C E . This pervasive R o m a n presence required negotiation b y the city's extensive Jewish population ( J o s e p h u s , / . W. 7 . 4 3 ) . D u r i n g t h e 6 6 - 7 0 war, hostility toward a n d divisions a m o n g Jews were evident w h e n an elite, highly acculturated Jew n a m e d A n t i o c h u s a c c u s e d o t h e r Jews o f plotting to b u r n the city. H e used R o m a n t r o o p s t o c o m p e l Jews t o j o i n h i m in offering sacrifices (to city a n d / o r imperial gods?), abolished Sabbath o b ­ servance, a n d incited violence against Jews (Josephus, /. W. 7 . 4 1 - 6 2 ) . T h e victorious R o m a n general Titus, returning to R o m e for the t r i u m p h with his father Vespasian a n d displaying Jewish captives a n d b o o t y in Syrian cities o n the way ( J o s e p h u s , / . W. 7 . 9 6 ) , visited A n t i o c h , a n d resisted de­ m a n d s to expel Jews from t h e city o r to rescind their rights (Josephus, JW

7.103,106-11). But while such investigation b e g i n s to u n c o v e r s o m e o f the realities

o f R o m a n imperial presence that followers o f Jesus in A n t i o c h negoti­ ated daily, t h e limited a n d partial nature o f t h e surviving data, its depen­ d e n c e o n written texts with a few artifacts,

10

a n d its bias toward elites,

public political events, and military actions, and bias against non-elites a n d discreet a n d self-protective actions c a n n o t provide anything like an adequate picture o f the vast range o f h u m a n a n d c o m m u n a l e x p e ­ r i e n c e i m p a c t e d b y t h e empire. Classical a n d archaeological studies o f 9. Carter, Matthew and Empire, 37-46. 10. Kondoleon, Antioch.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

p h e n o m e n a from o t h e r areas (given limited excavations at A n t i o c h ) , 11

such as cities ( P o m p e i i ; E p h e s u s ) , imperial cult o b s e r v a n c e s , e t h n i c a n d occupational associations, entertainments,

15

12

elite imperial n e g o t i a t i o n ,

13

food supply,

14

o r anything else, m a y provide helpful elaboration. O f

c o u r s e it c a n n o t b e a s s u m e d that what happens in o n e part o f the E m p i r e is true for all areas. N o t o n l y does the partial nature o f the material o r artifactual r e m a i n s present o n e p r o b l e m , so also does the challenge o f relating the various existing pieces to each other. Importantly, material o r artifactual r e m a i n s assume, b e l o n g to, a n d gain significance in the c o n t e x t o f a larger, c o m ­ plex, imperial structure o f power relations that the archaeological r e c o r d itself c a n n o t reconstitute. S o c i a l - s c i e n c e m o d e l s o f agrarian-aristocratic empires usefully provide a wholistic framework, a heuristic view o r m a p o f the imperial structure allowing dots to b e j o i n e d and the significance o f individual pieces o r areas to b e seen in relation to the whole. G e r h a r d L e n s k i s m o d e l o f agrarian-aristocratic empires (see Fig. 16

1 ) , modified b y J o h n Kautsky s work, has b e e n helpful for N e w T e s t a m e n t scholars.

17

Lenski focuses o n the exercise o f power, p o s i n g the question,

" W h o gets what and w h y ? " In R o m e s agrarian empire, a small group o f about 1 t o 3 p e r c e n t o f the population c o n t r o l e d the power, wealth (land, slave-labor, rents, taxes), and status, c o n s i g n i n g the r e m a i n i n g 9 7 percent o r so to relative powerlessness and degrees o f poverty. T h e e m p i r e was very hierarchical, with a huge gap b e t w e e n the wealthy and powerful elite and the rest. T h e r e was n o middle class, and little o p p o r t u n i t y (apart from trade o r patronage) for e c o n o m i c advancement, which, even i f e x ­ p e r i e n c e d , did n o t necessarily b r i n g improved social status. F o r the elite, life was quite comfortable; for m o s t , the p o o r o f varying degrees, it was a desperate struggle for daily e x i s t e n c e .

18

11. Price, Rituals and Power; for discussion of the imperial cult in relation to 1 Peter s instruction to honor the emperor, see Carter, "Honoring the Emperor," 13-43. 12. Harland, Associations. 13. Swain, Hellenism and Empire. 14. Garnsey, Food and Society; Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply. 15. Futrell, Blood in the Arena. 16. This diagram, used with permission, comes from Arlandson, Women, Class, and Society, 22. 17. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 189-296; Kautsky, Politics; Duling, "Empire." 18. Whittaker,"The Poor"; Stark, "Antioch."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and Empire Emperor

Λ— A y

Landowners

WEALTH STATUS POWER

Governing classes Urban elite

Retainers and Religionists

URBAN

RURAL

Peasants: Upper-level small freeholders (15-50 acres) Lower-level small freeholders (4-14 acres) Tenants Day Laborers Slaves

Merchants and Traders Artisans Day Laborers Slaves

Unclean and degraded Expendables

POPULATION

F I G U R E I : Model o f Agrarian-Aristocratic Empires

Rome-based and/or

allied elites exercised political, e c o n o m i c ,

social, military, a n d religious p o w e r a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h e i r h i e r a r c h i c a l world t h r o u g h various m e a n s . I will n o t e here eight arenas briefly with little elaboration. (1) E c o n o m i c c o n t r o l m e a n t ownership o f resources, n o t a b l y land, l a b o r (slaves, day laborers, t e n a n t farmers, etc.), a n d p r o d u c t i o n (food supply). (2) T a x e s a n d tributes, usually c o l l e c t e d in kind, transferred wealth f r o m peasant farmers, fishermen, local artisans etc. to various elites s p a n n i n g local landowners/officials t o t h e emperor. Refusal t o pay taxes c o n s t i ­ tuted a n act o f rebellion.

95

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W TESTAMENT

( 3 ) R o m a n m i l i t a r y power, b o t h actual and legendary, ensured c o m p l i ­ a n c e a n d m a i n t a i n e d R o m a n honor. (4) War, however, is expensive, as is a large bureaucracy. R o m e avoided expensive war and m i n i m i z e d b u r e a u c r a c y through alliances with p r o ­ vincial elites, with w h o m t h e y shared p o w e r and spoils (taxation; status) a n d from w h o m t h e y e x p e c t e d loyalty and the m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e status quo. Such alliances involved c o o p e r a t i o n and dependency, c o m p l i a n c e a n d tension, reciprocity a n d c o m p e t i t i o n for honor, power, a n d c o n t r o l o f resources. Often elites were centered in cities and towns, often in local c o u n c i l s or, as in J e r u s a l e m , in the temple, with (in)vested interests in m a i n t a i n i n g the status quo. This observation has e n o r m o u s implications for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the roles o f the so-called (but m i s n a m e d ) "religious" leaders in the G o s p e l s o f M a t t h e w and M a r k . (5) Such alliances i n c o r p o r a t e d participants in networks o f p a t r o n client relationships. Patronage from the e m p e r o r down ensured inter­ l o c k i n g favors a n d loyalty, privilege a n d dependency, as well as conflict and c o m p e t i t i o n . Elites valued calculated and self-benefiting displays o f wealth, power, a n d civic euergetism (the sponsorship o f a festival, build­ ing, group m e e t i n g s , statue, h a n d o u t , etc.). T h e y c o m p e t e d against each o t h e r for honor. Cities c o m p e t e d with o t h e r cities. Euergetistic acts en­ h a n c e d status t h r o u g h influence a n d wealth and often provided e n o u g h b e n e f i c e n c e to non-elites to alleviate s o m e hardship while m a i n t a i n i n g the status quo. ( 6 ) I m p e r i a l theology, asserted t h r o u g h civic celebrations o f victories and rulers as well as b y i m a g e - b e a r i n g coins, statues, buildings, p e r s o n ­ nel, festivals, poets, writers, etc., c l a i m e d that the gods, especially Jupiter, had c h o s e n R o m e and its e m p e r o r to rule the world and manifest the gods' will a n d blessings a m o n g the nations. T h e imperial cult, frequently p r o m o t e d b y local elites, provided a m e a n s o f c o n s t r u c t i n g and inter­ preting Rome's world and a m o s t l y voluntary m e a n s o f expressing loy­ alty t h r o u g h sacrifices to images in temples, and at games, street parties, artisan guild meals, etc. ( 7 ) R h e t o r i c , notably as the art o f persuasive speech, was p r o m i n e n t at civic o c c a s i o n s . W h e r e a s military force employed fear to c o e r c e c o m p l i ­ a n c e , spoken a n d written rhetoric sought c o n s e n t by persuasion, thereby

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

securing social control, c o o p e r a t i o n , a n d c o h e s i o n . S p e e c h e s appropriate to various civic o c c a s i o n s a n d written texts articulated t h e power rela­ tions o f d o m i n a t i o n that m a i n t a i n e d t h e civic order a n d privileged role o f t h e elite. (8) R o m a n "justice" protected elite m e m b e r s ; bringing charges, for e x ­ ample, against a corrupt governor, while possible, was e x t r e m e l y diffi­ cult. Yet harsh action was taken against threats to imperial structures. P u n i s h m e n t s often fitted n o t the c r i m e but the offenders social status. Crucifixion, for instance, was reserved for n o n - c i t i z e n s a n d low-status provincials w h o threatened the state (only citizens guilty o f treason were, appropriately, c r u c i f i e d ) .

19

This m o d e l o f the larger structure o f R o m e s empire, n u a n c e d a n d elaborated b y classical a n d archaeological studies, allows t h e function and significance o f specific parts to b e seen in relation to t h e whole. T h e m o d e l focuses o n power, and so b r o a d e n s a conventional historical c o n ­ cern with politics, war, religion, o r "great m e n " to t h e overall structure, t o the interrelatedness o f parts, to collective m o v e m e n t s , a n d t o non-elites so often i g n o r e d in historical studies but crucial for t h e early Christian movement.

20

O t h e r approaches provide specific insight into t h e d y n a m i c s o f power in c o n t e x t s such as peasant e c o n o m i e s where there are massive differentials o f power. Cultural anthropologist J a m e s S c o t t , along with others,

21

recognizes that w h e n e v e r p o w e r and control are asserted, o p ­

position a n d resistance are inevitable. Scott e x a m i n e s multiple forms o f d o m i n a t i o n and diverse expressions o f resistance in societies like R o m e s empire in w h i c h there are massive p o w e r inequalities. S c o t t identifies three m e a n s o r spheres w h e r e b y elites e x t e n d d o m i n a t i o n a n d exploita­ tion: material (appropriation o f grain, taxes etc.), status (acts o f humilia­ tion a n d assaults o n dignity), a n d ideological (justifications for practices: coins, inscriptions, buildings, texts, c e r e m o n i e s , personnel, speeches etc.).

22

E a c h sphere o f d o m i n a t i o n does n o t create grateful and blessed

s ubmi s si o n t h r o u g h o u t the populace, despite the claims o f t h e public

19. Garnsey, Social Status. 20. For the use of "Peoples History" approaches, see Carter, "Matthews People." 21. Scott, Domination; Scott, Weapons of the Weak; Barbalet, "Power and Resis­ tance." 22. Scott, Domination, 198.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

transcripts o r "official" versions o f reality crafted by elites (coins, rituals, texts, etc.), a n d d o m i n a t i n g action is as m u c h for elite c o n s u m p t i o n t o e n h a n c e elite p o w e r as for non-elite intimidation. Rather, these assertions o f d o m i n a t i o n create b o t h c o m p l i a n c e a n d n u m e r o u s forms o f resistance. O p e n , violent, a n d direct challenges to power, what Scott calls "forms o f publicly declared resistance," are relatively infrequent. W h e n t h e y do occur, public resistance t o material d o m i n a t i o n m a y c o m p r i s e , for example, boycotts, n o n - p a y m e n t o f taxes, attacks o n ruling personnel, and seizing property and resources. T h e Jewish revolt o f 6 6 - 7 0 C E was o n e such form o f public resistance. Public responses to status d o m i n a t i o n o r humiliation involve public assertions o f worth a n d dignity in gestures, clothing, speech, o r violation o f symbols. Public responses to ideological d o m i n a t i o n c o m p r i s e counter-ideologies that negate an elites claims with c o u n t e r visions and claims. But m u c h m o r e often in peasant societies, resistance is expressed in m o r e covert, self-protective, a n d calculated ways, taking the form o f "disguised low profile undisclosed resistance o r infra-politics." Disguised forms o f resistance to material d o m i n a t i o n m a y involve pilfering, footdragging, p o a c h i n g , evasion, a n o n y m o u s threats, cheating on taxes, sabotage, go-slows, etc. Disguised forms o f resistance to status d o m i n a ­ tion c o m p r i s e apparently inadvertent n o n - e x p r e s s i o n s o f h o n o r (a sneer, no greeting),

23

anger, retaliation in rituals, subversive songs a n d stories,

tales, rumor, development o f a u t o n o m o u s space, a n d d i s a r m i n g acts o f seizing initiative from t h e powerful like carrying a soldier s p a c k further t h a n the stipulated mile, o r h a n d i n g over o n e s u n d e r g a r m e n t as well as t h e outer g a r m e n t , thereby e x p o s i n g the harshness o f the powerful o n e s d e m a n d ( M a t t 5 : 3 8 - 4 2 ) , etc. Disguised forms o f resistance t o ideologi­ cal d o m i n a t i o n involve the development o f a dissident subculture such as millennial religions, social banditry, o r world-upside-down

imagery.

W h e r e there is a u t o n o m o u s space away from the always-controlling eyes o f the elite, non-elites nurture alternative versions o f reality o r hidden transcripts. T h e s e h i d d e n transcripts o f c o u n t e r - i d e o l o g y contest and negate t h e elites d o m i n a n t public version, assert the h o n o r a n d dignity o f the powerless, keep alive h o p e s a n d visions o f different forms o f s o ­ cietal interaction, i m a g i n e a n o t h e r world, a n d legitimize self-protective (and o c c a s i o n a l l y publicly rupturing) forms o f dissent. 23. Ibid., v, cites an Ethiopian proverb that sums up active, non-violent, self-protec­ tive resistance: "When the great lord passes, the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

I n relation to M a t t h e w a n d M a r k , Scott's w o r k exposes t h e inad­ equacies o f t h e view that since Jesus did n o t advocate o p e n revolt, the gospel story is "apolitical" o r "pre-political" o r "politically indifferent" o r "spiritual."

24

Scott's work, consistent with classical studies, recognizes t h e

interrelatedness o f political, e c o n o m i c , social, a n d religious spheres a n d acknowledges religion as an integral p a r t o f cultural a n d political arenas. In Scott's t e r m s , M a t t h e w and Mark's stories o f Jesus, crucified b y R o m e but raised b y G o d to e x p o s e t h e limits o f R o m a n power, is a h i d d e n tran­ script that contests t h e public transcript o r elite, "official," n o r m a l i z i n g view o f reality. Jesus articulates a n d enacts a h i d d e n transcript o f t h e empire o f G o d that c o n d e m n s imperial d o m i n a t i o n , repairs its d a m a g e in Jesus' healings, e x o r c i s m s , a n d feedings, a n d anticipates t h e j u s t i c e o f God. Jesus exemplifies t h e politics o f disguise a n d anonymity, notably t h r o u g h his p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o f t h e r u m o r o f God's i m m i n e n t r e m o v a l o f Rome's world a n d establishment o f God's empire. B o t h G o s p e l s , however, recognize that Jesus o c c a s i onal l y ruptures t h e political order with direct challenges to the ruling powers (the temple attack) w h o r e s p o n d b y executing h i m . To focus o n t h e d y n a m i c s o f imperial power—both its exercise a n d its effect—evokes t h e d i s p u t e d studies.

26

25

a n d diverse discipline o f pos t - col oni al

Postcolonial studies u n m a s k t h e c o m p l e x experiences, d y n a m ­

ics, strategies, i m p a c t , a n d legacy o f imperial power—political, e c o n o m ­ ic, societal, cultural, religious, m i l i t a r y — o n m i n d s , b o d i e s , resources, 24. For discussion of Scotts work and the Gospels, see Horsley, ed., Hidden Tran­ scripts. 25. Late first-century Antioch is not a post colonial situation; Roman power is a present, not past, reality. Nor is Antioch a colonia, in the sense of being founded as a settlement of veterans. Nor is Rome's empire, so the argument goes, comparable to recent capitalist empires (what Lenin called "the highest stage of capitalism"). While empires have different forms and motivations, common is the key reality of imperial­ ism, "the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory" (Said, Culture and Imperialism, 9). Though Rome was not a nineteenth-century capitalist empire, its elite knew numerous ways of being a "domi­ nating metropolitan center," and of exercising the power discrepancy between the pow­ erful center (Rome) and the provinces. 26. The bibliography is immense. For example, Fanon, Wretched of the Earth; Said, Culture and Imperialism; Bhabha, Location of Culture; Castle, ed., Postcolonial Discourses. For biblical studies, Donaldson, ed., Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading; Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies; Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Bible; Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism; Sugirtharajah, Bible as Empire. For Roman studies, Webster and Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism; Mattingly, ed., Dialogues in Roman Imperialism.

EMPIRE IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

societal interactions, cultural expressions, institutions, m e d i a , t h e past and t h e future, etc. Particularly i m p o r t a n t is the subjugateds engage­ m e n t with o r negotiation o f t h e power differential b e t w e e n itself a n d the d o m i n a t i n g imperial power. This negotiation is c o m p l e x b e c a u s e o f the diverse m e a n s and effects o f imperial control. It is effected, as I have n o t e d above, n o t o n l y t h r o u g h force, intimidation, a n d spin, but also t h r o u g h c o m p l e x and disguised m e a n s such as alliances, client-kings, interdependence, patronage, calculated benefits, and self-beneficial euergetism. This hybridity o f straddling various worlds, o f ambivalent and a m b i g u o u s interactions b e t w e e n oppressor and oppressed, interweaves benefit with subordination, gift with obligation, o p p o r t u n i t y with exploi­ tation, m i m i c r y with opposition, appreciation with resentment, c o m p l i c ­ ity with c o e r c i o n , e n a b l e m e n t with critique, submission with resistance, participation with alternative v i s i o n s .

27

Local experiences o f impe­

rial p o w e r include self-benefiting a c c o m m o d a t i o n , c o o p e r a t i o n a n d / o r c o - o p t a t i o n , self-protective c o m p l i a n c e , and m i m i c r y ,

28

as well as c a l c u ­

lated and disguised forms o f resistance, fantasies o f revenge and destruc­ tion, and o p e n protest ( n o n - v i o l e n t and violent) that directly confronts t h e ruling power. This partial "catalogue" is n o t to suggest that provin­ cials c h o s e o n e m e a n s o f interaction, but illustrates a c o m p l e x range o f frequently simultaneous interactions and negotiations a m o n g elite a n d non-elite. S u c h diverse negotiations o f imperial power c o m p l i c a t e b i n a ­ ries o f d o m i n a t i o n and subjugation, exploitation and deprivation, p o w e r and resistance, oppression and injustice, g o o d and bad—as apt as t h e y often s e e m to b e . 27. For example, Reg, the fictional leader of the Peoples Front of Judea and staunch opponent of Roman control in the movie Life of Brian, expresses the ambigu­ ity of complicity in oppositional practices by conceding (in a list that also reflects his creators socialization) that the Romans have provided "better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, freshwater systems, baths and public order." Contemporary studies have noted the ambiguous roles of African mission schools that were both a means of imperial control (imposing western language/culture and silencing local languages), while simultaneously productive of power in providing educated leaders who articulated dissent, organized protest, and subsequently led independent states. 28. Fanon {Wretched of the Earth, 52) illustrates envy and mimicry in the "perma­ nent tension" of the oppressed: "The settler s world is a hostile world, which spurns the native, but at the same time is a world of which he is envious." Envy translates into desire for the power and benefits of the oppressors world. Mimicry seeks to gain that which is hated and despised. Mimicry means the quest for counter-mastery in various forms. See Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

P o s t c o l o n i a l approaches offer at least a double focus for G o s p e l studies, o n e involving the imperial c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e Gospels' origin and address, a n d the o t h e r involving t h e i m p e r i a l i s m o f c o n t e m p o r a r y W e s t e r n biblical studies that focus o n these G o s p e l s as religious texts a n d fail t o engage imperial c o n t e x t s , t h e n a n d now. Sugirtharajah describes p o s t c o l o n i a l i s m as "an interventionist i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h refuses t o take the d o m i n a n t reading as an u n c o m p l i c a t e d representation o f the past and i n t r o d u c e s an alternative reading."

29

E d w a r d Said has e m p h a s i z e d

a "contrapuntal reading" o f imperial sources that engages t h e official discourse as well as resistant discourse a n d t h e interactions b e t w e e n the t w o .

30

S u c h approaches frame discussions o f M a t t h e w s a n d M a r k s

G o s p e l s as resistant discourse that contests d o m i n a n t scholarly views o f Rome's e m p i r e that for t o o l o n g have regarded the E m p i r e as irrelevant to t h e G o s p e l s . I have briefly identified a fivefold, multilayered approach o f cultural intertextuality as a m e a n s o f engaging the Gospels' imperial negotiation c o m p r i s i n g historical studies, classical a n d archaeological studies, s o ­ cial s c i e n c e m o d e l s o f empire, cultural anthropology, a n d p o s t c o l o n i a l studies—to w h i c h I a m n o w going to add a sixth e l e m e n t in t h e s e c o n d section, n a m e l y s o m e f o r m s o f literary c r i t i c i s m (audience-oriented a n d narrative studies).

FOUR INVESTIGATIONS: MATTHEW'S GOSPEL I will briefly e m p l o y such approaches in elucidating four aspects o f M a t t h e w s G o s p e l s negotiation o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e focus will be o n t h e G o s p e l s plot, Christology, eschatology, a n d discipleship o r ecclesiology.

Matthew's In his w o r k On the Art of Poetry

1

Plot*

(chs. 6 - 1 7 ) , the leading literary t h e o ­

rist in t h e a n c i e n t world, Aristotle, argued that plots c o m p r i s e n o t j u s t a series o f events but an ordered c o m b i n a t i o n o f incidents that forms a u n i t y o f a c t i o n , c o m p r i s i n g a b e g i n n i n g , middle, a n d end. T h e e n d is a 29. Sugirtharajah, Bible as Empire, 3. 30. Said, Culture and Imperialism, xxv. Compare Scott's public and hidden tran­ scripts. 31. Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, 132-53.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

"necessary o r usual c o n s e q u e n c e " o f the carefully structured s e q u e n c e o f preceding events. Causation and c o n s e q u e n c e guide this s e q u e n c e . Events must b e probable a n d / o r necessary in relation to t h e end. I have argued elsewhere that M a t t h e w s plot unfolds t h r o u g h a six­ fold s e q u e n c e o f events.

32

Space p e r m i t s o n l y a generalized statement:

(1) M a t t 1:1—4:16: G o d initiates the story in the c o n c e p t i o n and c o m ­ m i s s i o n i n g o f Jesus to manifest G o d s saving presence. Jesus is threat­ ened by Herod, witnessed about by J o h n , s a n c t i o n e d b y G o d in baptism, tempted by the devil, and validated by Scripture. (2) M a t t 4 : 1 7 — 1 1 : 1 : Jesus manifests G o d s saving presence, the king­ d o m or empire o f G o d , t h r o u g h constituting a c o m m u n i t y o f followers, preaching, healing, and exorcizing. (3) M a t t 11:1 — 16:20: Jesus' actions and words reveal his identity as G o d s c o m m i s s i o n e d agent and the life-giving purposes o f G o d s empire. He draws positive and negative responses. Powerful elites conflict with h i m over his societal vision and practices. (4) M a t t 1 6 : 2 1 — 2 0 : 3 4 : Jesus teaches his followers that conflict with the elite will result in his crucifixion in Jerusalem and G o d s resurrection o f h i m from the dead. This event has n u m e r o u s implications for their lives as followers. (5) M a t t 2 1 : 1 — 2 7 : 6 6 : Jesus enters Jerusalem, challenges the c e n t e r o f the elites power in the temple, conflicts with t h e m over societal leadership, and c o n d e m n s their world as t e m p o r a r y and facing i m m i n e n t destruc­ tion u n d e r G o d s j u d g m e n t . T h e alliance o f Jerusalem leaders and the R o m a n governor crucifies h i m . (6) M a t t 2 8 : 1 - 2 0 : G o d s saving purposes o v e r c o m e the worst that the elite can do and e x p o s e the limits o f imperial power by raising Jesus. H e participates in G o d s authority over all creation. H e c o m m i s s i o n s his followers to worldwide mission, p r o m i s i n g to b e with t h e m . In elaborating this plot as a m e a n s o f imperial negotiation, I will b e guided by Aristotle's focus on the end as the c o n s e q u e n c e o f the s e q u e n c e o f events. T h e plot ends with the resurrection o f the c r u c i ­ fied Jesus; its central d y n a m i c c o m p r i s e s conflict between Jesus and the 32. Ibid., 140-53; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 555-56.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and R o m e - a l l i e d J e r u s a l e m leaders.

33

Empire

103

Attention to the d y n a m i c s o f R o m a n

imperial p o w e r n o t e d above alerts us to the Judean leadership as Rome's allies a n d t o the vast extent o f their power far b e y o n d what we would tamely identify as "religious." T h e i r societal power is evident in M a t t h e w 2 w h e n H e r o d , ally o f R o m e and "king o f the Jews" b e c a u s e R o m e allowed h i m the t h r o n e , hears the magi's news o f the birth o f a n o t h e r "king o f the Jews"( Josephus, Ant. 1 5 . 3 8 7 ; 1 6 . 3 1 1 ) . T h e a n n o u n c e m e n t challenges the world as H e r o d and t h e J e r u s a l e m leadership k n o w it. H e s u m m o n s his allies, "the c h i e f priests a n d scribes o f the people," to inquire about messianic expectations ( 2 : 4 - 6 ) . T h e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s o f politics and religion is clearly d e m ­ onstrated; m e s s i a n i c expectations, t h o u g h neither unitary n o r universal, were a n t i - R o m a n in envisioning a n e w world without Rome's societal, elite-benefiting structures. H e r o d is the face o f imperial sin. T h e chapter reveals standard expressions o f tyrannical imperial power—allies (the Jerusalem elite, 2 : 4 - 6 ) , lies (false claims o f worship, 2:8), spies ( 2 : 7 - 9 , 1 2 ) and m u r d e r o u s v i o l e n c e ( 2 : 1 6 ) — t h a t protect its power and m a i n t a i n its privileged world. H e r o d is but o n e o f m a n y "kings o f the earth" (so Ps 2; M a t t 17:14) w h o resist God's just purposes a n d w h o s e sin profoundly i m p a c t s the vulnerable R a c h e l s ( M a t t 2 : 1 6 ) . F r o m such violent and oppressive sinfulness Jesus is to save the world t h r o u g h his life, words, actions, death, resurrection, a n d return (Matt 1:21). Thereafter, t h r o u g h their conflict with Jesus, the G o s p e l consistently exposes a n d c o n d e m n s imperially-allied leaders for shaping a s o c i e t y c o n t r a r y to God's j u s t a n d life-giving purposes. Like M a r k , M a t t h e w presents these leaders as constituting an alliance o f c h i e f priests, scribes, Pharisees, a n d Sadducees w h o are primarily J e r u s a l e m - b a s e d allies o f Rome.

3 4

M a t t h e w introduces the c h i e f priests and scribes as Herod's

allies ( M a t t 2 : 4 - 6 ) . F r o m 1 2 : 1 4 (cf. M a r k 3:6), the Pharisees plot Jesus' death a n d w o r k with the c h i e f priests to arrest Jesus ( 2 1 : 4 5 - 4 6 ; 2 6 : 4 , 4 7 ) . I n J e r u s a l e m Jesus verbally conflicts with "chief priests and scribes" ( 2 1 : 1 5 ) , "chief priests and elders" ( 2 1 : 2 3 ) , "chief priests and Pharisees" ( 2 1 : 4 5 ) , "Pharisees" ( 2 2 : 1 5 - 2 2 , 3 4 - 4 6 ) , and Sadducees ( 2 2 : 2 3 - 3 3 ) .

3 5

In

ch. 2 3 , h e repeatedly curses a n d c o n d e m n s "the scribes and Pharisees" 33. Kingsbury, "Figure of Jesus." 34. Correctly, Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 35-49; Tilborg, Jewish Leaders. See also Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark. 35. Cf.Mark 11:18,27; 12:12-13,18.

ιθ4

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

(cf. M a r k 1 2 : 3 8 - 4 0 ) . " C h i e f priests, scribes, and elders" ( M a t t 2 6 : 3 - 5 , 1 4 , 5 7 - 6 8 ) w o r k with Pilate to execute Jesus ( 2 7 : l - 2 ) .

3 6

T h e s e rulers with

soldiers o f the R o m a n g o v e r n o r formulate a story to c o u n t e r G o d s rais­ ing o f Jesus ( 2 8 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) . In c o n c e n t r a t i n g power in the h a n d s o f the J e r u s a l e m - b a s e d leader­ ship, M a t t h e w accurately presents in general t e r m s n o t o n l y Judean power structures but also Rome's c o m m o n practice o f ruling provinces t h r o u g h alliances with local elites. Josephus declares the c h i e f priests, appointed b y the R o m a n s , to b e the rulers o f Judea as local agents o f R o m a n p o w e r (Josephus, Ant. 2 0 . 2 4 9 - 2 5 1 ) . T h e "most notable Pharisees" allied with "powerful citizens" c o o p e r a t e d with R o m e in resisting m o v e s toward war in 6 6 C E (Josephus, /. W. 2 . 3 3 0 - 3 3 2 ; 2 . 4 1 0 - 4 1 8 ) . T h o u g h relation­ ships b e t w e e n R o m e and local elites, b e t w e e n d o m i n a n t and d o m i n a t e d / allies, were often tensive b e c a u s e t h e rewards and benefits o f p o w e r were considerable, they had vested interests in preserving t h e status quo. M a t t h e w s Jesus questions the l e g i t i m a c y o f these J e r u s a l e m - b a s e d , R o m a n client-rulers. In M a t t 9 : 3 6 (cf. M a r k 6 : 3 4 ) , after further healings ( 4 : 2 3 - 2 5 ; chs. 8 - 9 ) , Jesus "had c o m p a s s i o n for [the crowds] for t h e y were harassed and h e l p l e s s

37

like sheep without a shepherd." In so d e s c r i b ­

ing people u n d e r R o m e s yoke ( l l : 2 8 - 3 0 ) , m o n m e t a p h o r for rulers and l e a d e r s .

39

3 8

M a t t h e w employs a c o m ­

T h e image o f shepherd refers to

i m p o r t a n t leaders such as M o s e s ( E x o d 3 : 1 ) , M o s e s and J o s h u a ( N u m 2 7 : 1 5 - 2 3 ) , and David (2 S a m 5:2), and, in M a t t 2:6, Jesus. In G r e e k and R o m a n traditions, the m e t a p h o r o f "shepherds" frequently refers to kings and e m p e r o r s . Suetonius has t h e e m p e r o r T i b e r i u s reject a provincial g o v e r n o r s requests for i n c r e a s e d taxes b y saying, "it was the part o f a g o o d shepherd to shear his flock n o t skin it."

40

D i o C h r y s o s t o m says that a king or e m p e r o r should b e "a shepherd o f his people not . . . a caterer and b a n q u e t e r at their expense."

41

Quoting

H o m e r , h e speaks against the excessive use o f power in r e m i n d i n g t h e

36. Cf. Mark 14:1-2,43,53-65; 15:1. 37. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 230-31. 38. For the "yoke" of 11:28-30 as Roman imperial power, Carter, Matthew and Empire, 108-29. 39. And for God (Ps 23) who saves the people from Egyptian (Ps 78:52) and Babylonian (Isa 40:11; 49:9-10) oppression. 40. Suetonius, Tib. 32. 41. Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 13.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

105

e m p e r o r Trajan that t h e e m p e r o r is a "shepherd o f peoples" w h o is to "protect flocks, n o t . . . to slaughter, b u t c h e r a n d skin t h e m . "

42

In describing t h e people as "sheep without a shepherd," Jesus de­ clares that t h e y l a c k legitimate leadership. This declaration collides with the public transcript that presented t h e J e r u s a l e m - b a s e d leadership as the n a t i o n s legitimate leaders s i n c e they were allies with and representa­ tives o f R o m e . Jesus evokes a H e b r e w Bible tradition that depicts Israels leaders as shepherds w h o fail to represent G o d s just rule. In Ezekiel 3 4 , for e x a m p l e , such shepherds/leaders rule with "force a n d harshness," feeding a n d c l o t h i n g themselves but n o t the sheep ( E z e k 3 4 : 2 - 3 , 8 ) . T h e y neglect t h e people a n d have n o t "strengthened the w e a k . . . healed t h e sick . . . b o u n d up t h e injured . . . b r o u g h t b a c k t h e strayed . . . sought the l o s t . . . b u t with force a n d harshness you ruled t h e m " ( 3 4 : 4 , 1 7 - 1 9 ) . B e c a u s e the elite rulers are in t h e process o f destroying the people, G o d replaces these leaders. G o d "will rescue m y sheep from their m o u t h s so that t h e y m a y n o t b e food for t h e m " ( 3 4 : 1 0 ) . G o d will gather t h e m t o ­ gether, feed t h e m , heal the sick, a n d protect t h e m ( 3 4 : 1 1 - 2 2 ) . G o d will "feed t h e m with j u s t i c e " ( 3 4 : 1 6 ) . G o d will b e king t h r o u g h G o d s agent, "one shepherd, m y servant David" ( 3 4 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) . A n eschatological age o f p e a c e o r wholeness c o m p r i s i n g security, abundant fertility, a n d G o d s p r e s e n c e will follow ( 3 4 : 2 5 - 3 0 ) . E v o k i n g this intertext reveals that the Jerusalem leaders allied with R o m e enforce a society c o n t r a r y to G o d s purposes. T h e i r rule is illegitimate; their days are n u m b e r e d . Differing v i s i o n s o f s o c i e t y are integral to t h e s c e n e s o f conflict b e t w e e n Jesus a n d t h e s e rulers. Jesus conflicts with t h e m over d o i n g m e r c y o n t h e S a b b a t h ( M a t t 12:1 - 1 4 ; cf. M a r k 2 : 2 3 - 2 8 ) , o v e r his author­ ity t o m a n i f e s t G o d s p r e s e n c e a n d p u r p o s e s including against t h e devil ( M a t t 1 : 2 1 - 2 3 ; 9 : 1 - 8 ; 1 2 : 2 2 - 4 5 ; cf. M a r k 2 : 1 - 1 2 ; 3 : 2 0 - 2 7 ) , a n d over t h e i r unjustly depriving t h e elderly o f m a t e r i a l s u p p o r t ( M a t t 1 5 : 1 - 2 0 ; cf. M a r k 7 : 9 - 1 3 ) . T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e figures p r o m i n e n t l y in t h e s e disputes. B o t h Jesus a n d t h e leaders value t h e t r a d i t i o n , b u t t h e y conflict o v e r its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e interpretation o f t h e b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n s was a p o l i t i c a l a c t s i n c e it involved t h e c o n t r o l a n d shape o f society. M a t t h e w s Jesus declares that t h e rulers leadership a n d t h e

42. Ibid., 43-44. Philo describes the role of the tutor and adviser Macro in urging the "quarrelsome and contentious" emperor Gaius Caligula to more appropriate public behavior. Philo has Macro refer to the emperor Gaius as the "sovereign of earth and sea" and "a shepherd and master of the flock" (Leg. 44,52).

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ιο6

(unjust) s o c i a l o r d e r that t h e y o v e r s e e are c o n t r a r y to God's p u r p o s e s ; G o d will "uproot" t h e m ( M a t t 1 5 : 1 3 ) , an i m a g e o f j u d g m e n t a n d c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n ( J e r 1:10; 1 2 : 1 7 ) . Having a n n o u n c e d G o d s c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the J e r u s a l e m - b a s e d leadership

in M a t t

15:13, Jesus enacts that c o n d e m n a t i o n

against

Jerusalem's temple, the center o f their power ( 2 1 : 1 2 - 1 7 ; cf. M a r k 1 1 : 1 5 19). As an i n s t r u m e n t o f shaping society, the temple s e c u r e d the elites socio-political, e c o n o m i c , and religious d o m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h taxes, buy­ ing and selling sacrifices and supplies for temple ritual, a d m i n i s t e r i n g landed estates, receiving and storing gifts (cf. M a t t 15:5), and controlling ritual and festivals.

43

T h e temple, like others in R o m e s world, was part

slaughterhouse, worship center, political center, and b a n k ( J o s e p h u s , / . W. 2 . 2 9 3 ; Ant

18.60).

Jesus c o n d e m n s the temple order and practices o f c h a n g i n g m o n e y and selling sacrifices ( M a t t 2 1 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . H e quotes Isa 5 6 : 7 ("a h o u s e o f prayer") to contrast Isaiahs inclusionary vision i n c o r p o r a t i n g "all p e o ­ ples" with the elites exclusionary practices. Jesus enacts this inclusionary vision b y healing the blind and l a m e in the temple ( M a t t 2 1 : 1 4 ; cf. L e v 2 1 : 1 6 - 2 4 ; 2 S a m 5:8). Jesus n a m e s their temple a "den for r o b b e r s / b a n ­ dits" (Jer 7 : 1 1 ) . T h e phrase evokes J e r e m i a h s c o n d e m n a t i o n o f t h e pow­ erful w h o seek t h e t e m p l e s protection but contravene G o d s will with exploitative and oppressive social and e c o n o m i c actions: acting unjustly, oppressing the alien, orphan, and widow, shedding i n n o c e n t b l o o d , and pursuing o t h e r gods (Jer 7 : 5 - 6 , also 7:9). Their a c t i o n s m e a n t j u d g m e n t in 5 8 7 B C E . T h e y would likewise for Jerusalem's temple, destroyed, ironi­ cally, by R o m e in 7 0 C E ( M a t t 2 2 : 7 ) . Jesus elaborates the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the rulers in parables ( M a t t 2 1 : 2 8 — 2 2 : 1 4 ; cf. M a r k 1 2 : 1 - 1 2 ) , foretelling their d e m i s e ( M a t t 2 1 : 4 1 ; 2 2 : 7 ) . T h e curses o f ch. 2 3 identify the leaders' failures in neglecting "the weightier matters o f the law, justice, m e r c y and faithfulness" ( 2 3 : 2 3 ) . The Gospel describes t h e m as "evil" ( 9 : 4 ; 12:34) and "tempting" Jesus ( 1 6 : 1 - 4 ) , thereby (regrettably) applying to t h e m features o f the devil ( 4 : 1 , 3; 1 3 : 3 8 - 3 9 ) and presenting t h e m as the devil's allies and agents. This c o n n e c t i o n is not surprising since in the temptation s c e n e M a t t h e w d e e m e d the empire to b e u n d e r the devil's control (4:8; cf. M a r k 5 : 1 - 2 0 ) . Matthew's Gospel resists their societal structure by depicting it as o p ­ posed to God's purposes. 43. Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 131-59.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

107

These forces collide in the s c e n e with Pilate ( M a t t 2 7 : 1 - 2 , 1 1 - 2 6 ; 44

cf. M a r k 15:1 —15). A s governor, Pilate exercises e n o r m o u s power as the representative o f R o m a n interests. H e rules in alliance with t h e Jerusalem elite a n d for their mutual interests in defending t h e status q u o against perceived threats p o s e d b y a provincial kingly pretender like Jesus. Thus it is quite false to see the so-called "trial" s c e n e along e t h n i c lines as a struggle b e t w e e n Jews and Gentiles, o r along religious-secular lines in which "religious" Jews n e e d t h e help o f a "secular" ruler to r e m o v e a religious o p p o n e n t . S u c h divisions are quite inappropriate for imperial dynamics. Oblivious to any imperial d y n a m i c s , o n e interpreter r e m a r k ­ ably designates M a t t h e w s Pilate, R o m e s representative and c h i e f e n ­ forcer o f life-and-death imperial power, as "politically neutral"!

45

Rather,

in this s c e n e ruling elites c o m p r i s i n g Jerusalem leaders a n d the R o m a n g o v e r n o r w o r k together in a tensive relationship to r e m o v e a provincial w h o threatens t h e i r way o f structuring t h e world. Pilate k n o w s that t h e y want h i m to crucify Jesus, and in addressing Jesus as "king o f the Jews," Pilate k n o w s Jesus threatens R o m e s authority ( M a t t 2 7 : 1 1 ) . O n l y R o m e can appoint legitimate (that is, submissive and controllable) kings. B u t if Pilate agrees t o o readily to their request, h e b e c o m e s their pawn. Yet h e k n o w s that h e needs t h e alliance with t h e m in order to rule, so h e c a n n o t disappoint t h e m . I f t h e y are c o n c e r n e d about Jesus, h e ought to b e also. T h e o u t c o m e is never in doubt. In fact M a t t 27:3 indicates Judas's r e c o g n i t i o n that Jesus is c o n d e m n e d , long before Jesus a n d Pilate meet. The real issue that the s c e n e reveals is the process o f Jesus' c o n ­ d e m n a t i o n . It shows h o w these elite parties negotiate with each other, m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r o w n power, s c o r i n g points, taking care o f business, and presenting t h e i r a c t i o n s as t h e will o f the people. S o , with questions Pilate holds a referendum o n w h o should b e set free in an attempt to see w h e t h e r Jesus o r B a r a b b a s has m o r e support ( M a t t 2 7 : 1 5 - 1 9 ) . T h e Jerusalem leaders manipulate the crowd to shout for B a r a b b a s ( 2 7 : 2 0 2 1 ) . Pilate s e e m s to take their advice o n Jesus ( 2 7 : 2 2 ) but stalls, testing to see h o w m u c h support there is for Jesus a n d h o w m u c h opposition there m i g h t b e i f h e crucifies their reputed "king" ( 2 7 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) . H e skillfully manipulates t h e crowd and Jerusalem leaders to b e g h i m ( n o t e v. 2 2 , "all o f t h e m said") to crucify Jesus. A l s o skillfully, but quite deceptively, h e declares h e will do their will, thereby disguising the elite's wishes and 44. For elaboration, Carter, Pontius Pilate, 1-54,75-99; for Mark, 55-74. 45. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 120-37.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ιο8

m a s k i n g his control as the p e o p l e s will ( 2 7 : 2 4 - 2 6 ) . W h i l e Pilate washes his hands, M a t t h e w s s c e n e with its focus o n all the forces a n d strate­ gies o f t h e E m p i r e allied against Jesus, G o d s a n o i n t e d agent ( S o n and C h r i s t ) , exposes R o m a n j u s t i c e t o b e all washed-up. But they c a n n o t keep h i m dead. T o all appearances Rome's politi­ cal, e c o n o m i c , cultural, and military p o w e r s e e m e d absolute. Its famed military fostered this s e m b l a n c e o f o m n i p o t e n c e . In urging Jews n o t "to take a r m s against so m i g h t y a power" in 6 6 C E , for e x a m p l e , Agrippa recognizes Rome's vast power, s a n c t i o n e d by G o d , that n o o n e has b e e n able to resist (Josephus, J.W. 2 . 3 5 3 , 3 5 8 - 9 4 ) . Yet the c o n c l u s i o n o f M a t t h e w s plot reveals the limits o f this power. In crucifying Jesus, the empire demonstrates its ultimate p o w e r to take life. B u t the G o s p e l does not end with Jesus' crucifixion. T h e angel a n n o u n c e s to the w o m e n that G o d has raised Jesus, and t h e y e n c o u n t e r h i m ( M a t t 2 8 : 6 - 9 ; cf. M a r k 1 6 : 1 - 7 ) . R e s u r r e c t i o n evokes traditions such as D a n 1 2 : 1 - 3 and 2 M a c c a b e e s 6 - 7 , whereby this act o f j u s t i c e vindicates faithful o p p o n e n t s o f empire and reverses the d a m a g e inflicted by empires that act c o n t r a r y t o G o d s purposes. A c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e missing body, the J e r u s a l e m lead­ ers, n a m e l y c h i e f priests and elders, conspire with the soldiers, w h o were "like dead m e n " in this place o f life, n o t to tell the g o v e r n o r Pilate but t o explain the missing b o d y as theft by the disciples ( M a t t 2 8 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) . In the closing verses, Jesus a n n o u n c e s , "All authority in heaven and earth has b e e n given to m e " ( 2 8 : 1 8 ) . G o d has shared with the risen Jesus life-giving authority over all creation. R o m e c a n n o t resist G o d s empire. The G o s p e l s plot is, in J a m e s Scott's terms, a "hidden transcript" that contests and dissents from the public transcript o r official version o f the e m p i r e s self-presentation. T h e story o f a crucified provincial w h o m R o m e is unable to keep dead denies ultimate p o w e r t o R o m e , e x p o s e s its death-bringing c o m m i t m e n t s , and celebrates G o d s greater life-giving power manifested through Jesus' words, works, and resurrection. It is these transformative words and works that are to shape and form the identity and alternative societal e x i s t e n c e o f Jesus-believers. T h e G o s p e l tells a story that guides Jesus-believers in interpreting the present and living accordingly.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and Christology:

Contesting

Empire

Imperial

Claims

Scholars have e x a m i n e d t h e origins, historical development, and titular 46

expression o f Matthew's C h r i s t o l o g y . Narrative approaches have criti­ cized an e x c l u s i v e focus on titles, arguing that the G o s p e l uses various m e a n s to present J e s u s ' character (words, actions, interactions, e t c . ) as the plot unfolds, and that narrative c o n t e x t s supply m e a n i n g for titles, whatever their historical traditions.

47

Here, in an extension o f narrative

approaches, I focus briefly o n a cluster o f t h e m e s that e m e r g e as aspects o f Jesus' character. The

G o s p e l presents Jesus as the agent o f G o d w h o manifests

G o d s sovereignty, presence, will, and blessing a m o n g h u m a n beings. U n n o t i c e d b y previous M a t t h e a n scholarship, this cluster o f t h e m e s also contests central claims o f imperial t h e o l o g y that present R o m e and t h e e m p e r o r as agents o f t h e gods, c h o s e n to manifest their sovereignty, pres­ 48

ence, will, and wellbeing a m o n g h u m a n b e i n g s . Submission to imperial R o m e m e a n s submission to t h e gods. In setting these two sets o f differ­ ent claims t o g e t h e r I a m n o t c o n t e n d i n g that R o m a n imperial t h e o l o g y is the s o u r c e o f M a t t h e a n Christology. M y c o n c e r n is not with origin, but with intertextuality. W h a t happens w h e n these claims interact? I suggest that t h e G o s p e l contests Rome's claims, even as it m i m i c s t h e m , b y as­ serting God's purposes e n c o u n t e r e d in Jesus. W h e r e are t h e purposes o f the gods found o n earth? W h o is their agent? A c c o r d i n g to Virgil, Jupiter ordains R o m e to b e "lords o f the world."

49

A c e n t u r y later, S e n e c a has N e r o ask, "Have I o f all m o r t a l s

found favor with heaven and b e e n c h o s e n to serve o n earth as vicar o f the gods? I a m t h e arbiter o f life a n d death."

50

C o n t e m p o r a r y with Matthew's

Gospel, Statius celebrates D o m i t i a n w h o "at Jupiter's c o m m a n d rules for h i m t h e blessed world."

51

In presenting Jesus as God's agent, M a t t h e w contests claims that R o m e represents divine purposes, locating such a g e n c y in Jesus the "Christ" ( M a t t 1:1, 17; cf. M a r k 1:1), anointed or c o m m i s s i o n e d to save 46. For discussion Carter, Matthew and Empire, 57-59; for Mark, Kingsbury, Christology of Mark's Gospel. 47. Keck, "Renewal." 48. Carter, Matthew and Empire, 57-74. 49. Virgil, Aen. 1.281. 50. Seneca, Clem. 1.1.2. 51. Statius, Silvae 4.3.128-129.

109

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

from sins and manifest G o d s p r e s e n c e ( M a t t 1 : 2 1 - 2 3 ) . This c o m m i s s i o n to enact G o d s saving presence, c o n f i r m e d in Jesus b a p t i s m ( 3 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) and temptation ( 4 : 1 - 1 1 ) , is re-languaged in 4:17 as G o d s "empire/king­ d o m " (cf. M a r k 1 : 9 - 1 5 ) . Jesus identity as G o d s agent is underlined by the t e r m s K i n g ( M a t t 2 : 2 ) and S o n ( 2 : 1 5 ) , b o t h o f w h i c h draw o n tra­ ditions that emphasized special relationship with G o d and e n a c t G o d s reign. Jesus, not R o m e or the e m p e r o r D o m i t i a n , is light for the world (4:15-16).

5 2

C l a i m s o f a g e n c y are closely related to issues o f sovereignty. W h o s e world is it? To w h o m does the sovereignty o f the world b e l o n g ? Imperial theology asserts Rome's divinely s a n c t i o n e d rule and c l a i m o n h u m a n loyalty and production. Jupiter has ordained R o m e to rule an empire 53

"without limits." "At Jupiter s c o m m a n d , " insists Statius, D o m i t i a n "rules for h i m the blessed world" as "lord o f the earth," "ruler o f t h e nations," and "master o f sea and land."

54

55

Likewise the G o s p e l is clear that as G o d s agent Jesus manifests God's sovereignty. T h e o p e n i n g g e n e a l o g y asserts G o d s sovereignty over h u m a n history in its selective r e c o u n t i n g o f G o d s dealings with Israel and the nations ( M a t t 1 : 1 - 1 7 ) . G o d s purposes are n o t manifested here through R o m e . This world originates in G o d s creative w o r k narrated in Genesis 1-3 ( M a t t 19:4). Jesus originates in G o d s creative and saving purposes ( 1 : 1 8 - 2 5 ) . In a n n o u n c i n g the "tensive s y m b o l " o f the e m p i r e / 56

k i n g d o m o f G o d (4:17; cf. M a r k 1 : 1 5 ) , Jesus manifests G o d s sovereign­ ty over this world and its attendant blessings (Matt 5 : 3 - 1 2 ) . T h e rest o f his public m i n i s t r y elaborates this c l a i m over h u m a n lives ( 4 : 1 8 - 2 2 ; cf. M a r k 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 ) , over sickness and d e m o n s ( M a t t 4 : 2 3 - 2 5 ; 8 : 2 8 - 3 6 ; 12:25; cf. M a r k 1 : 2 1 - 3 4 ) , and over the sea ( 8 : 2 3 - 2 7 ; cf. M a r k 4 : 3 5 - 4 1 ) . Jesus addresses G o d as L o r d o f heaven and earth (Matt 11:25) and G o d grants to h i m , n o t to R o m e , " a l l authority in heaven and earth" ( 2 8 : 1 8 ) . As G o d s agent, Jesus manifests G o d s presence. P h i l o narrates Gaius Caligula's attempts to c o - o p t the J e r u s a l e m temple as a place to wor­ ship Gaius, "the n e w Z e u s m a d e manifest."

57

Statius identifies D o m i t i a n

52. Cicero, Cat. 4.11; Martial, Epig. 8.21. 53. Virgil, Aen. 1.254,278-279. 54. Statius, Silvae 5.1.37; 3.4.20; 4.2.14-15. 55. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll 7.3. 56. Carter, Matthew and Empire, 61. 57. Philo, Leg. Gai. 346. For analysis, Carter, John and Empire, Appendix.

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and as "that present Deity," a deus

5

praesens. *

Empire

111

In passages p r o m i n e n t

in

M a t t h e w ( a n d without parallels in M a r k ) t h e Gospel highlights Jesus role in manifesting divine presence. In M a t t 1:23 the u n b o r n Jesus is n a m e d E m m a n u e l , G o d with us. T h e citation from Isa 7:14 m e t o n y m i cally evokes Judah's struggles with imperial power involving Israel, Syria, and Assyria, and G o d s presence with the people (Isa 8 : 8 , 1 0 ) .

5 9

In M a t t

18:20 Jesus assures disciples that the c o m m u n i t y o f followers gathered for prayer e n c o u n t e r s his presence, a n d t h r o u g h h i m , G o d s saving pres­ ence. T h e G o s p e l closes with t h e risen Jesus assuring followers, w h o m h e has j u s t sent in mission, that his presence, a n d that o f G o d , is with t h e m forever ( 2 8 : 2 0 ) . T h r o u g h o u t his ministry, Jesus E m m a n u e l disturbs a n d disrupts the imperial status quo. Related to agency, sovereignty, a n d presence are claims about di­ vine will a n d purpose. I m p e r i a l t h e o l o g y asserts that the world u n d e r R o m e s c o n t r o l is t h e will o f Jupiter a n d the gods. T h e G o s p e l evaluates Rome's world as o n e o f sin from w h i c h people need saving (Matt 1:21). H e r o d , ally and agent o f R o m e , manifests imperial damage a n d violence (sinfulness) in protecting this world (ch. 2 ) . T h e G o s p e l also evaluates the imperial world as devilish. T h e devil offers Jesus "all the empires ( β α σ ι λ ε ί α ς ) " o f t h e world" in return for worship, an offering predicated o n t h e devil's right to assign t h e world's empires, o f w h i c h R o m e is fore­ most, to w h o m e v e r h e wishes ( 4 : 8 ; cf. M a r k 5 : 1 - 2 0 ) . Jesus forbids his followers to imitate the pervasive d o m i n a t i o n or "power over" societal structures o f t h e empire: "You k n o w that t h e rulers o f the Gentiles lord it over t h e m a n d their great o n e s are tyrants over t h e m . It will n o t b e so a m o n g you" ( M a t t 2 0 : 2 5 - 2 6 ; cf. M a r k 1 0 : 4 2 - 4 5 ) . T h e final i n c o m p a t i b i l ­ ity a n d antipathy are d e m o n s t r a t e d in the elite's crucifixion o f Jesus. Matthew's G o s p e l asserts that Jesus' words a n d actions manifest God's will, his purposes for t h e world, saving presence, rule, a n d sover­ eignty. Jesus definitively interprets God's will revealed in Scripture. H e s u m s up t h e tradition with a double c o m m a n d to love G o d a n d neighbor, quoting D e u t 6:5 a n d L e v 1 9 : 1 8 ( M a t t 2 2 : 3 4 - 3 9 ; M a r k 1 2 : 2 8 - 3 4 ) . T w i c e h e cites H o s 6:6 to indicate God's preference for m e r c y n o t sacrifice ( M a t t 9:13; 1 2 : 7 ) . Followers must seek first God's justice or righteousness ( 6 : 3 4 ) . In M a t t 5 : 1 7 - 4 8 Jesus reinterprets six c o m m a n d s clarifying a n d radicalizing their d e m a n d s . 58 Statius, S//vae 5.2.170. 59. Carter, "Evoking Isaiah'; also, Matthew and Empire, 93-108.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

112

The last e l e m e n t o f the cluster c o n c e r n s societal wellbeing. Imperial t h e o l o g y b o a s t e d that the w o r l d s wellbeing results from R o m a n rule. Various c o i n s , altars (such as Augustus's Ara Pacts

in R o m e ) , inscrip­

tions, and rhetoric p r o c l a i m e d big gifts o f wellbeing such as p e a c e {pax, eirene),

v i c t o r y (victoria,

tility (ceres).

nike)

y

social h a r m o n y (concordia),

c o r n a n d fer­

M a t t h e w presents Jesus as G o d s agent in manifesting G o d s

blessing, and societal well-being looks very different. T h e beatitudes with their double t i m e frame o f the n o w and the not-yet o f G o d s action a n n o u n c e God's blessing on the poor, the powerless, and t h o s e w h o seek justice ( M a t t 5 : 3 - 1 2 ) .

6 0

Jesus teaches prayer for G o d s will, G o d s empire,

and daily bread ( 6 : 9 - 1 3 ) . His healings, evoking prophetic (Isa 3 5 : 5 - 6 ) and apocalyptic (2 B a r 2 9 ; 7 3 ) traditions, reverse the d a m a g e caused by, a m o n g o t h e r things, inadequate food supply a n d nutrition, and harsh working conditions. His e x o r c i s m s set people free from t h e devilish power b e h i n d the empire. His feedings anticipate the eschatological full­ ness and material a b u n d a n c e o f God's reign in contrast with t h e e m p i r e s claims (Matt 1 4 : 1 3 - 2 1 ; 1 5 : 3 1 - 3 9 ; Isa 2 5 : 6 - 1 0 ) . W h i l e these t h e m e s could b e elaborated, it is sufficient to n o t e this previously u n r e c o g n i z e d intertextuality between imperial t h e o l o g y and M a t t h e w s Christology. T h e claims collide as the G o s p e l contests yet i m i ­ tates imperial claims, a n d offers its hearers an alternative worldview and societal e x p e r i e n c e .

Eschatology Jesus' resurrection is the plot's final s c e n e in whi ch God's sovereignty and Rome's limited p o w e r are revealed. Talk o f resurrection is, o f course, eschatological. That G o d would raise t h o s e w h o died in faithful relation­ ship to G o d was a belief that b e l o n g e d to a cluster o f understandings involving the final establishment o f God's purposes. This claim o f n e w life and vindication is asserted in contexts o f injustice u n d e r imperial oppression. It is evident, for instance, in Daniel 12 and 2 M a c c a b e e s 7, in the claim o f resurrection for t h o s e m a r t y r e d b y A n t i o c h u s Epiphanes in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C E . R e s u r r e c t i o n affirmed that imperial tyranny could n o t b r e a k faithful relationship with G o d and could n o t thwart God's purposes. R e s u r r e c t i o n ensured participation in t h e establishment o f God's life-giving and just purposes. 60 Carter,"Matthew and the Margins," 128-37; see also Carter,"Power and Identities," and Carter, "Embodying God s Empire."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

113

The G o s p e l envisions the eschatological establishment o f G o d s purposes a n d final repudiation o f Rome's societal structure. G o d de­ stroys Rome's world a n d establishes God's heaven and earth ( M a t t 19:28; 2 4 : 3 5 ) . I n 2 4 : 2 7 - 3 1 , M a t t h e w presents Jesus' return as the e n d o f all e m ­ pires, especially R o m e ' s .

61

As I have argued elsewhere, v. 2 8 m a k e s an

u n a m b i g u o u s reference to eagles ( n o t to vultures as α ε τ ο ί = aetoi

has

b e e n m i s t a k e n l y translated). T h e verses describe the final battle in w h i c h Rome's army, represented b y the s y m b o l i c eagle that legions carried into battle,

62

is destroyed. Verse 2 9 denotes j u d g m e n t o n the c o s m i c deities

that R o m e c l a i m e d s a n c t i o n e d its power. Jesus t h e S o n o f M a n returns to 4

establish G o d ' s everlasting d o m i n i o n . . . a n d kingship that will never b e destroyed" ( D a n 7 : 1 3 - 1 4 ; cf. M a t t 1 6 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) . Interestingly, in depicting God's empire in c o s m i c t e r m s o f over­ w h e l m i n g power, destroyed o p p o n e n t s , and i m p o s e d universal rule, this scene imitates c o n v e n t i o n a l assertions o f imperial power. It reflects the Gospel's e m b e d d e d n e s s in a n d a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o its imperial culture, along with its utilization o f imperial biblical traditions like D a n i e l .

63

M i m i c r y frequently operates in colonial situations a m o n g oppressed groups w h o k n o w the hybridity o f unequal power relations, yearn for the p o w e r that t h e y despise, a n d imitate their oppressors, s o m e t i m e s to ally with t h e m but often to m o c k a n d m e n a c e t h e m with visions o f their violent downfall.

64

F o r Matthew, God's empire out-muscles a n d counter-

masters Rome's empire.

61. Carter, "Are There Imperial Texts in the Class?" 62. Josephus,/. W 3.123; 5.48. 63. Note similar imitation in the parable of the violent king and his sons wedding feast in Matt 22:1-14. Burning cities (22:7) is a common imperial tactic that subjugates and humiliates a defeated people. Titus's troops burned Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE (Josephus, J.W. 2.395-397; 6.249-408). With other Jewish writers (4 Ezra 3:24-36; 4:22-25; 2 Bar 1:1-5; Josephus,/. W. 6.96-110,409-411), Matthew interprets Jerusalem's fall in 70 CE as God's judgment, especially on the Jerusalem leaders for rejecting Jesus. Matthew employs a paradigm from the Hebrew Scriptures that saw various imperial powers as the agents of God's punishment—Assyria (Isa 10:1-7), Babylon (Deut 28-30; Jer 25:1-11), Persia (Isa 45:1-13), the Seleucids under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mace 6:12-17)—but were then subjected to God's punishment: Assyria (Isa 10:12-34), Babylon (25:12-14), Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mace 7:32-36). Matthew evoked this paradigm in quoting Isa 7-9 in 1:23 and 4:15-16; see Carter, Matthew and Empire, 93-107. 64. Bhabha,"Of Mimicry and Man."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

114

And

in the Meantime?

(Ecclesiology)

H o w are followers o f Jesus to live? T h e G o s p e l s presentation o f Jesus' manifestation o f G o d s rule/empire (Matt 4 : 1 7 , 1 8 - 2 2 ; cf. M a r k 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 ) creates a counter-cultural c o m m u n i t y c o m m i t t e d to G o d and Jesus with an alternative worldview and set o f societal practices. This c o m m u n i t y , e m b e d d e d in and subordinated to the empire, is to e m b o d y G o d s reign as an alternative to the e m p i r e s societal reality. T h e G o s p e l offers strate­ gies, b o t h self-protective and contestive, in which M a t t h e w s people can negotiate imperial d e m a n d s while m a i n t a i n i n g their allegiance to G o d s purposes manifested in Jesus. This protective yet contestive way o f life forbids violent attacks (Matt 2 6 : 5 2 ; 5 : 3 8 - 4 8 ) and flight ( 2 8 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) as m e a n s o f negotiating the power differential. Instead, t h e readers are to practice non-violent re­ sistance ( 5 : 3 8 - 4 8 ) typical o f the calculated and self-protective practices o f peasants identified by J a m e s S c o t t .

65

Instead o f cowering submission

o r violent retaliation, Jesus urges a non-violent response to the supe­ r i o r s slap, offering the o t h e r c h e c k to deflect the intended intimidation and d e m e a n i n g ( 5 : 3 9 ) . In 5:41 Jesus requires c o m p l i a n c e to angaria,

a

c u s t o m whereby R o m e requisitioned labor, transport (animals, ships), and lodging from subject people. But followers were to subvert imperial authority by carrying the s o l d i e r s p a c k twice the distance, putting the soldier off-balance, in danger o f b e i n g disciplined for overly harsh c o n ­ duct. Likewise, in paying taxes followers assumed the c o m m o n double pose o f subordinated groups, n a m e l y self-protective public o b e d i e n c e , with a hidden and c o d e d transcript o f dissent whereby the taxes, which the Gospel subversively reframes, acknowledge not R o m e s sovereignty but G o d s as lord o f heaven and earth (Matt 1 7 : 2 4 - 2 7 ;

66

22:15-22;

6 7

cf.

Mark 12:13-17). W h i l e s o m e disciples a b a n d o n e c o n o m i c activity and social struc­ tures to follow Jesus (Matt 4 : 1 8 - 2 2 ; 9:9; 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 0 ) , there is n o general call to separate from family, material, and societal ties. Their social patterns are, however, to contrast with t h e e m p i r e s hierarchical and tyrannical n o r m s . Jesus forbids his followers to imitate the d o m i n a t i o n behaviors and structures o f the "rulers o f the gentiles" and "their great men" w h o

65. Scott, Domination; Scott, Weapons of the Weak; Wink, "Beyond Just War." 66. Carter, Matthew and Empire, 130-44. 67. Herzog,"OnStage."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

115

"lord it over" a n d "rule" others ( 2 0 : 2 5 ) . Instead, they are to e m b r a c e the marginality a n d humility o f the e m p i r e s lowest m e m b e r s , slaves, seek­ ing the o t h e r s g o o d in imitation o f Jesus ( 2 0 : 2 6 - 2 8 ; cf. 2 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ; M a r k 1 0 : 4 2 - 4 5 ) . Followers are to adopt h o u s e h o l d structures that challenge conventional a n d r o c e n t r i c , patriarchal, and hierarchical h o u s e h o l d pat­ terns ( M a t t 1 9 - 2 0 ; cf. M a r k 1 0 ) .

68

T h e i r m o r e egalitarian structure (cf.

Matt 2 0 : 1 2 ) reflects that God is father ( 5 : 1 6 , 4 5 ; 6:9; 23:9) not the e m p e r o r (pater patriae),

that Jesus is the only m a s t e r ( 2 3 : 1 0 ) , and that all disciples

bear a m a r g i n a l a n d vulnerable identity as G o d s children ( 5 : 9 , 4 5 ) . The G o s p e l consistently warns against the dangers o f wealth ( M a t t 6:24, 3 3 - 3 4 ; 1 3 : 1 9 - 2 2 ; cf. M a r k 4 : 1 9 ) . C o n t r a r y to Rome's exploitative e c o n o m i c s that foreground the quest for wealth, power, and status, Jesus advocates an alternative e c o n o m i c system and a c o m m u n i t y b a s e d in care for the poor. Jesus calls a "rich m a n " (Matt 1 9 : 2 3 , 2 4 ) , o n e w h o has great wealth b e c a u s e h e has m i s u s e d and exploited the p o o r (so Isa 1 0 : 1 - 3 ; E z e k 2 2 : 6 - 3 1 ; 3 4 : 1 - 2 2 ; A m o s 5 : 1 0 - 1 2 ; Sir 1 3 : 2 - 7 , 1 7 - 1 9 ) , to divest and redistribute wealth a m o n g t h e p o o r ( 1 9 : 2 1 ; cf. M a r k 1 0 : 1 7 - 2 3 ) . Jesus a d v o c a c y o f a c t i o n s to benefit t h e p o o r ( m o s t o f society) contradicts practices that lead t h e elite, motivated b y love o f status (philodoxia),

to

engage in self-benefiting acts o f patronage, and to ignore o r despise the unworthy poor.

69

Jesus ( c o u n t e r ) cultural formation involves a c h a n g e d

identity, societal orientation, and e c o n o m i c activity. A c t s o f restitution and j u s t i c e set right inequalities a n d transform unjust structures, rela­ tionships, a n d practices. M a t t h e w s G o s p e l claims that God's blessing and empire especially e m b r a c e the p o o r ( M a t t 5 : 3 ) . Citing P s a l m 3 7 , Jesus' third beatitude reverses t h e imperial e c o n o m i c order b y promising that the m e e k will receive t h e earth o r land, the basis o f wealth ( M a t t 5:5). T h e intertext o f P s a l m 3 7 ( 3 7 : 3 , 9 , 1 1 , 2 2 , 2 9 , 3 4 ) depicts the m e e k as the poor, oppressed by the powerful a n d dangerous rich ( 3 7 : 7 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 2 0 , 3 2 ) w h o m G o d will destroy ( 3 7 : 9 , 1 3 , 2 0 ) . The e c o n o m i c practices o f Jesus' followers are to include m e r c y and j u s t i c e . A c c o r d i n g to M a t t 6 : 1 - 1 8 , followers are to practice acts o f j u s t i c e (prayer, almsgiving, fasting) without imitating the "self-regard­ ing" practices o f elite patronage c o n c e r n e d with e n h a n c i n g elite status, reciprocity, creating dependents/clients, love o f h o n o r (philotimia), 68. Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 376-410. 69. For example, Seneca, Vit beat. 24.

and

ιι6

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

reputation (philodoxa).

Jesus a s s u m e s almsgiving ( 6 : 2 ) , a word that at its

root c o n c e r n s mercy, a fundamental quality o f G o d s empire exhibited in h u m a n interactions (5:7; citing H o s 6:6 in Matt 9:13 a n d 12:7). A c t s o f m e r c y ( 6 : 2 - 4 ) involve giving to beggars and lending where reciprocity is unlikely ( 5 : 4 2 ) . Prayers for daily bread are often answered in the m e r c i ­ ful a c t i o n s o f t h o s e w h o pray ( 6 : 1 1 ) . T o fast ( 6 : 1 6 - 1 8 ) is to live j u s t i c e and m e r c y in sharing food, h o u s i n g t h e homeless, clothing the naked, and c o m f o r t i n g the afflicted (cf. Isa 5 8 : 6 - 1 4 ; M a t t 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 ) . Jesus c o m m a n d s preaching G o d s empire, healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing lepers, and casting out d e m o n s without p a y m e n t

(10:7-8).

This differentiated way o f life for disciples is without anxiety for m a t e ­ rial g o o d s (food, drink, c l o t h i n g ) since G o d s j u s t i c e and reign ensure e n o u g h ( 6 : 1 9 - 3 4 ) . Yet perseverance, o r faithful and active endurance, is always n e c e ssa r y ( 2 4 : 1 3 ; cf. M a r k 1 3 : 1 3 ) . O n e s u m m a r y o f this lifestyle focuses o n love for n e i g h b o r as for o n e s e l f (Matt 2 2 : 3 9 ; c f 7 : 1 2 )

70

and love for o n e s e n e m y ( 5 : 4 4 ) in imita­

tion o f G o d s ways ( 5 : 4 5 - 4 8 ) . A n o t h e r s u m m a r y centers o n j u s t i c e or righteousness ( 6 : 3 4 ) . This c o m m i t m e n t to justice, in the midst o f R o m e s injustice, m e a n s o b s e r v a n c e o f T o r a h - p r a c t i c e s (Sabbath, purity, tithes, oaths, etc.) as interpreted b y Jesus ( 5 : 1 7 - 4 8 ; 2 2 : 3 7 - 3 9 ) . T h e s e practices enact j u s t i c e , mercy, and faithfulness ( 2 3 : 2 3 ) , basic to the alternative s o ­ cietal order that Jesus reveals as G o d s reign and purpose.

CONCLUSION M a t t h e w s G o s p e l offers Jesus-followers various strategies for negotiat­ ing the elite-dominated, socio-political, R o m a n imperial order. O n e strategy involves perspective o r understanding. T h e y are to understand the imperial system as sinful, devilish, u n d e r G o d s i m m i n e n t j u d g m e n t , temporary, and facing destruction. W i t h i n it, G o d s transforming empire is at work, manifesting G o d s sovereignty, presence, purposes, blessings, and will, m i m i c k i n g and disputing the similar claims o f imperial theol­ ogy. It is also at work creating and calling followers to an alternative worldview and to a challenging counter-cultural societal e x p e r i e n c e that e m b o d i e s G o d s reign in alternative practices. Until its future es­ chatological t r i u m p h , ironically an imitation o f imperial ways that on a c o s m i c scale attributes the ways o f C a e s a r to G o d , violent ( h u m a n )

70. Carter, "Love as Societal Vision."

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

117

opposition is forbidden. A c c o m m o d a t i o n , submission, mimicry, and a c ­ tive but self-protective, n o n - v i o l e n t resistance, and faithful and hopeful living provide a s p e c t r u m o f strategies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aristotle. "On the Art of Poetry." In Classical Literary Criticism, translated by T. S. Dorsch, 29-75. London: Penguin, 2001. Arlandson, J. M. Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Barbalet, John. "Power and Resistance." British Journal of Sociology 36 (1985) 521-48. Barclay, John. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE117 CE). Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1996. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. . "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse." In Location of Culture, 85-92. Bond, Helen. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. SNTSMS 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Carter, Warren. "Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as'Lights Out' Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:27-3\)? JBL 122 (2003) 467-87. . "Embodying God's Empire in Communal Practices." In Preaching the Sermon on the Mount: The World It Imagines, edited by David Fleer and David Bland, 22-35. St. Louis: Chalice, 2007. . "Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7-9 in Matthew 1:23 and 4:15-16." JBL 119 (2000) 503-20. . "Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves: 1 Peter 2:13—3:6." In A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, edited by Amy-Jill Levine, 13-43. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2004. . John and Empire: Initial Explorations. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2008. . "Love as Societal Vision and Fatal Practice in Matthew 22:34-40." In Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. Vol. 2. The Gospel of Matthew, edited by Thomas R. Hatina, 30-44. London/New York: Τ. & T. Clark, 2008. . Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001. . Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY:Orbis,2000. . Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Revised ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. . "Matthew's Gospel: Jewish Christianity, Christian Judaism, or Neither?" In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe, 155-80. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. . "Matthew's People." In A Peoples History of Christianity: Christian Origins, edited by Richard Horsley, 138-61. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. . Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003. . "Power and Identities: The Contexts of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount." In Preaching the Sermon on the Mount: The World It Imagines, edited by David Fleer and David Bland, 8-21. St. Louis: Chalice, 2007.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ιι8

. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Castle, Gregory, ed. Postcolonial Discourses: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Donaldson, Laura, editor. Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading. Semeia 75. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. Duling, Dennis. "Empire: Theories, Methods, Models." In The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John Riches and David Sim, 49-74. JSNTSup 276. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2005. Fanon, Franz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove, 1968. Futrell, Alison. Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. Garnsey, Peter. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. . Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. . Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Hanson, K. C , and D. E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Harland, Philip. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Herzog, William. OnStage and OfFStage with Jesus of Nazareth: Public Transcripts, Hidden Transcripts, and Gospel Texts." In Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance, edited by Richard Horsley, 41-60. Semeia 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Horsley, Richard. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Marks Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. , editor. Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance. Semeia 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Kautsky, John. Ihe Politics of Aristocratic Empires. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Keck, Leander. "Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology" NTS 32 (1986) 362-77. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Christology of Marks Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. . Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. . "The Figure of Jesus in Matthews Story: A Literary-Critical Probe." CBQ 49 (1987) 57-73. Kondoleon, Christine. Antioch: The Lost Ancient City. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Kristeva, Julia. "The Bounded Text" In Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, edited by L. Rondiez, 36-63. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Lenski, Gerhard. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Liew, Tat-Siong Benny. Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually. Leiden: Brill, 1999. r

C A R T E R — M a t t h e w and

Empire

119

Mattingly, David, editor. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. JRA Supplementary Series 23. Portsmouth, Rl: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 1997. Mowery, Robert. "Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew." Bib 83 (2002) 100-110. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Marks Story of Jesus. Maryknoll,NY: Orbis, 1988. Pilgrim, Walter. Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Price, Simon. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Riches, John, and David Sim, editors. The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. JSNTSup 276. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2005. Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993. Saldarini, Anthony. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington: Glazier, 1988. Scott, James. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. . Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Segovia, Fernando. Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000. Stark, Rodney."Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthews Gospel." In Social History of the Matthean Community, edited by David Balch, 189-210. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Sugirtharajah, Rasiah. The Bible as Empire: Postcolonial Explorations. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 2005. . The Postcolonial Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. . Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Swain, Simon. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Tilborg, Sjef van. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Webster, J., and N. J. Cooper, editors. Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3. Leicester, UK: University of Leicester, 1996. Whittaker, C. R."The Poor." In The Romans, edited by Andrea Giardina, 272-99. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Wink, Walter. "Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way." RevExp 89 (1992) 197-214.

4

King Jesus and His Ambassadors Empire and Luke-Acts

C R A I G A. EVANS

I

N T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T G o s p e l s , Jesus is acknowledged as k i n g — b y his followers and his e n e m i e s alike. In L u k e - A c t s Jesus is implicitly

c o m p a r e d to the "benefactors" o f his time. This c o m p a r i s o n criticizes and at the s a m e t i m e adopts an i m p o r t a n t political and social epithet. This interesting political d i m e n s i o n is furthered in the b o o k o f Acts, where Paul the a m b a s s a d o r is presented as an a m b a s s a d o r o f K i n g Jesus. This essay unfolds in three parts: ( 1 ) Jesus as king in the Gospels and early Christian literature; ( 2 ) Jesus as benefactor; and ( 3 ) the apostles as Jesus' ambassadors.

JESUS AS K I N G IN T H E GOSPELS AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE In the N e w T e s t a m e n t G o s p e l s , the kingship o f Jesus is affirmed primar­ ily in his interrogation and e x e c u t i o n (which will b e considered b e l o w ) . But there are i m p o r t a n t indications o f his kingship elsewhere in the Gospels. Mark's a c c o u n t o f Jesus' e n t r y into Jerusalem o n l y hints at king­ ship. T h e r e is n o quotation o f Z e c h 9:9, in which there is m e n t i o n o f Zion's king, and Jesus h i m s e l f is n o t called king. T h e crowds proclaim, "Hosanna! Blessed is he w h o c o m e s in the n a m e o f the Lord! Blessed is the k i n g d o m o f o u r father David that is c o m i n g ! H o s a n n a in the high-

120

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

est!" ( M a r k 1 1 : 9 - 1 0 ) . W h a t precise role Jesus h i m s e l f will play in bring­ ing about the " k i n g d o m o f D a v i d that is c o m i n g " is n o t m a d e clear, at least n o t in t h e c o n t e x t o f the e n t r a n c e into Jerusalem. M a t t h e w clarifies the narrative b y quoting Z e c h 9:9 ("Behold, your king is c o m i n g t o you") and b y identifying Jesus as the "son o f David" (Matt 2 1 : 5 , 9 ) . Thus, in M a t t h e w Jesus is king and son o f David. Luke does n o t quote Z e c h 9:9, but his disciples c r y out, "Blessed is the king w h o c o m e s in the n a m e o f the Lord!" (Luke 1 9 : 3 8 ) . Thus, in Luke Jesus is the king. T h e F o u r t h Gospel, in its version o f the e n t r a n c e into Jerusalem, also m a k e s Jesus' identity as the king explicit, n o t o n l y b y quoting Z e c h 9:9 (cf. J o h n 1 2 : 1 5 ) , but b y having the crowd c r y out: "Hosanna! Blessed is h e w h o c o m e s in the n a m e o f the Lord, even the king o f Israel!" ( J o h n 1 2 : 1 3 ) . O f course, b o t h the M a t t h e a n a n d J o h a n n i n e Evangelists p r o c l a i m the kingship o f Jesus earlier in their respective narratives. M a t t h e w in­ troduces t h e idea in his infancy a c c o u n t , where the wise m e n inquire, " W h e r e is h e w h o has b e e n b o r n king o f the Jews? F o r we have seen his star in the East, a n d have c o m e to worship h i m " (Matt 2 : 2 ) . Identifying Jesus as "king o f the Jews" ( β α σ ι λ ε ί ς τ ω ν ' Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν ) anticipates his eventual e x e c u t i o n as "king o f the Jews," thus fulfilling an implicit proph­ ecy. At the b e g i n n i n g o f his narrative, the J o h a n n i n e Evangelist tells us that Nathanael, u p o n m e e t i n g Jesus, declares: "Rabbi, you are the S o n o f G o d ! You are the K i n g o f Israel!" ( J o h n 1:49). This confession is very important, for it links the epithets " S o n o f G o d " a n d " K i n g o f Israel." Moreover, the epithet " K i n g o f Israel," like Matthew's infancy reference to "king o f the Jews," anticipates Jesus' official identity o n the o c c a s i o n o f his crucifixion. A n d finally, b o t h M a t t h e w and J o h n refer to Jesus as king in tra­ ditions u n i q u e to their respective Gospels. In J o h n , after feeding the five thousand, the multitude attempt to m a k e Jesus king b y force ( J o h n ό:^).

1

A n d in Matthew, in the c o n t e x t o f the eschatological discourse,

the e n t h r o n e d Jesus is described as the king w h o judges his e n e m i e s a n d rewards his faithful followers ( M a t t 2 5 : 3 4 , 4 0 ) .

2

All four Evangelists are in agreement in affirming the kingship o f Jesus at the t i m e o f his trial a n d execution. In M a r k , the high priest 1. The Greek reads: μ έ λ λ ο υ σ ι ν ε ρ χ ε σ θ α ι και ά ρ π ά ζ ε ι ν α υ τ ό ν Ί ν α π ο ι ή σ ω σ ι ν ("they were about to come and seize him, that they might make him king").

βασιλέα

2. The Greek reads (in v. 34): τ ο τ ε έ ρ ε ? b β α σ ι λ ε ύ ς τοις the king will say to those on his right...").

εκ δ ε ξ ι ώ ν α υ τ ο ύ

("Then

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

d e m a n d s t o k n o w o f Jesus: "Are you t h e Messiah, the S o n o f the Blessed?" 3

( M a r k 1 4 : 6 1 ) . Jesus' reply,"I am" (v. 6 2 a ) , is affirmative: H e is indeed t h e 4

Messiah, t h e S o n o f the G o d . H i s elaboration, "and y o u will see t h e S o n o f M a n seated at t h e right h a n d o f Power, a n d c o m i n g with t h e clouds o f 5

heaven" (v. 6 2 b ) , m a k e s clear that Jesus sees h i m s e l f as God's A n o i n t e d who, having received from G o d kingly authority, will sit at God's right h a n d (Ps 110:1a; cf. D a n 7 : 9 ) a n d judge his e n e m i e s (Ps 110:1b; D a n 7 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . T h e parallel a c c o u n t s in M a t t h e w a n d Luke present essentially the s a m e picture, even i f t h e y differ at a few points (Matt 2 6 : 6 3 - 6 4 ; Luke 22:67-70). T h e kingship o f Jesus is affirmed in all four Gospels w h e n Jesus is interrogated

b y Pontius Pilate, t h e prefect o f Judea. Pilate asks

Jesus, "Are y o u king o f t h e Jews?" ( M a r k 15:2a = Matt 2 7 : 1 1 a = Luke 2 3 : 3 a = J o h n 1 8 : 3 3 ) . T h e title "king o f t h e Jews" ( b βασιλείς

τών

' Ιουδαίων) e c h o e s the title M a r c u s A n t o n i u s and the R o m a n Senate c o n ­ ferred upon H e r o d in 4 0 B C E (Josephus, /. W. 1.282: A n t o n i a "resolved to have h i m m a d e king o f t h e Jews [βασιλέα καθισταν Ιουδαίων]"; 6

7

1.388; cf. Ant. 14.9; 15.9; 1 5 . 3 7 3 , 4 0 9 ) . Jesus affirms t h e question, even i f his answer appears t o b e equivocal: "You have said so" ( M a r k 15:2b =

3. The Greek reads: συ ε! δ xpioxbs ό uibs του εύλογητοΰ. 4. The confession to be Messiah, son of God, in the Jewish tradition clearly implies kingship. We see this in Scripture (e.g., 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:2, 7; 89:19-21, 26-27) and in traditions that emerge shortly before the time of Jesus and his movement, e.g., "And he (shall be) a righteous king [αύτος- βασιλεύς δίκαιος], taught of God, over them. And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king the Lords Messiah [βασιλεύς αυτών χριστοί κυρίου]" (Pss. Sol. 17:32). 5. The Greek reads: και δψεσθε τον uibv του ανθρώπου έκ δεξιών καθήμενον TT\S δυνάμεως καΐ έρχόμενον μετά τών νεφελών τού ουρανού. 6. One should note Herod's frank confession before Octavian (soon Augustus), af­ ter the latter s defeat of Marcus Antonius: "O Caesar, as I was made king [βασιλεύς] by Antonius, so do I profess that I have used my royal authority in the best manner, and entirely for his advantage; nor will I conceal this further, that you certainly found me in arms, and an inseparable companion of his, had not the Arabians hindered me. However, I sent him as many auxiliaries as I was able, and many thousand measures (cori) of corn. Indeed, I did not desert my benefactor [τον εύεργέτην] after the blow that was given him at Actium" (Josephus,/. W. 1.388). 7. The statement that Antonius "made" (καθισταν) Herod "king of the Jews" may explain why the Matthean Evangelist words the question of the wise men the way he does: "Where is he who has been born [ό τεχθείς·] king of the Jews?" In contrast to Herod, whose kingship was the result of Roman appointment, the kingship of Jesus is by birth, and a divine birth at that.

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

Matt 27:1 l b = Luke 2 3 : 3 b ) . Pilate presents Jesus t o t h e crowd as the "king o f the Jews," offering t o release h i m ( M a r k 15:9; cf. J o h n 18:39) a n d later asking t h e crowd what t o d o with t h e "king o f the Jews" ( M a r k 15:12; cf. J o h n 1 9 : 1 5 ) . M a t t h e w edits t h e latter t w o passages, t o read "Jesus w h o is called M e s s i a h " ' ( M a t t 2 7 : 1 7 , 2 2 ) , affirming t h e m o r e appropriate epithet from a Jewish a n d Christian perspective. The F o u r t h Evangelist draws attention t o t h e kingship o f Jesus b y intensifying t h e contrast b e t w e e n king Jesus a n d king Caesar. T h e o p ­ p o n e n t s o f Jesus quarrel with Pilate, lest t h e governor release h i m : " I f you release this m a n , y o u are n o t Caesar s friend; every o n e w h o m a k e s h i m s e l f a k i n g sets h i m s e l f against C a e s a r " ( J o h n 1 9 : 1 2 ) . W h e n Pilate asks i f h e should crucify t h e Jewish king, t h e crowd replies: " W e have n o king b u t C a e s a r " ( J o h n 1 9 : 1 5 ) . R e c o g n i z e d as king b y Nathanael at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e narrative, nearly forced into b e c o m i n g king mid-way t h r o u g h t h e narrative, Jesus is flatly rejected as king b y t h e Jewish rulers at t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f the narrative. T h e kingship o f Jesus is further affirmed in his abuse a n d m o c k e r y suffered at t h e h a n d s o f t h e R o m a n soldiers. T h e y dress Jesus in faux imperial regalia a n d salute h i m in imperial language: "Hail, king o f t h e 8

Jews!" ( M a r k 1 5 : 1 8 = M a t t 2 6 : 2 9 = J o h n 1 9 : 3 ) . The kingship o f Jesus is also affirmed in t h e crucifixion itself, where a titulus p r o c l a i m i n g t h e g r o u n d s for p u n i s h m e n t (causa poena),

( G r e e k : τίτλος), is posted, read­

ing " T h e k i n g o f t h e Jews [ b βασιλεύς των Ιουδαίων]" ( M a r k 15:26; cf. M a t t 2 7 : 3 7 ; Luke 2 3 : 3 8 ) .

9

The kingship o f Jesus is explicitly affirmed elsewhere in t h e N e w Testament. P a u l s m i n i s t r y in Thessalonica is disrupted b y o p p o n e n t s w h o drag t h e apostle before city officials, charging that h e a n d his c o m ­ p a n i o n s "are all acting against t h e decrees o f Caesar, saying that there is a n o t h e r king, Jesus" (Acts 17:7). I n Revelation, Jesus is twice a c c l a i m e d 8. The soldiers "clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him" (Mark 15:17). The import of the purple cloak is obvious; the "crown of thorns" is supposed to represent the laurel wreath. During the celebration of a triumph, it was customary for Caesar to wear a robe and laurel wreath (cf. Dio Cassius 6.23; 44.11 [Julius Caesar]; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.130 [Augustus]; Suetonius, Tib. 17.2 "clad in the purple-bordered toga and crowned with laurel" [Tiberius]; Dio Cassius 59.25.3 [Caligula]). For other accounts of such mockery, see Philo, Flacc. 36-39; Plutarch, Pomp. 24.7-8; P. Louvre 68 1.1-7). 9. Both Matthew and Luke expand Mark's terse "King of the Jews." Matthew reads: "This is Jesus the king of the Jews" (27:37), while Luke reads: "This is the king of the Jews" (Luke 23:38), with the respective additions placed in italics.

123

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

124

"Lord o f lords a n d K i n g o f kings" ( R e v 17:14 and 19:16 [with titles reversed]). Elsewhere in early Christian writings the kingship o f Jesus is af­ firmed. This is especially n o t e d in t h e a c c o u n t o f the Martyrdom

of

Polycarp: But when the magistrate persisted and said, "Swear the oath, and I will release you; revile Christ," Polycarp replied, "For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me [πώς δύναμαι βλασφημήσαι τον βασιλέα μου τον σώσαντά με]?" (9:3) For this one, who is the Son of God, we worship, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord, as they deserve, on account of their matchless devotion to their own King and Teacher [ένεκεν εύνοιας ανυπερβλήτου της eis τον ϊδιον βασιλέα και διδάσκαλον]. May we also become their partners and fellow-disciples! (17:3) Now the blessed Polycarp was martyred on the second day of the first part of the month Xanthicus, seven days before the ka­ lends of March, on a great Sabbath, about two o'clock p.m. He was arrested by Herod, when Philip of Tralles was high priest during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus, but while Jesus Christ was reigning as King forever [βασιλεύοντος δέ εις τους αίώνας' Ιησού Χριστού]. To him be glory, honor, majesty, and the eternal throne [θρόνος αιώνιος], from generation to gen­ eration. Amen. ( 2 1 : 1 ) 10

T w o m o r e passage should b e m e n t i o n e d : You are calloused and don t want to cleanse your hearts and mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King [παρα τού βασιλέως τού μεγάλου]" (Shepherd of Hermas 17:8 [ = Herm. Vis. 3:9]) Certainly not! On the contrary, he sent him in gentleness and meekness, as a king might send his son who is a king [βασιλεύς πέμπων υίον βασιλέα επεμψεν]; he sent him as God; he sent him as a man to men. When he sent him, he did so as one who saves by persuasion, not compulsion, for compulsion is no attri­ bute of God. (Diogn. 7:4) 11

10. Translations are based on Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 139,142-43. 11. Translations are based on ibid., 208,301.

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

125

F r o m t h e accusations leveled against Jesus himself, to t h e charges brought against t h e first two o r three generations o f Christians, it is clear that Jesus was perceived as k i n g a n d rival t o C a e s a r himself. O f course, this is consistent with his r e c o g n i t i o n as M e s s i a h a n d S o n o f G o d , w h i c h in Jewish tradition, i n f o r m e d b y a n c i e n t and sacred Scripture, implied kingly status. It is t o L u k e s distinctive interpretation o f this kingly status o f Jesus that we n o w turn.

JESUS AS BENEFACTOR O n t h e o c c a s i o n o f a dispute over w h o a m o n g t h e m is t h e greatest, Jesus teaches his disciples: "You k n o w that t h o s e w h o are supposed to rule over t h e G e n t i l e s lord it over t h e m , a n d their great m e n exercise author­ ity over t h e m " ( M a r k 1 0 : 4 2 ) . T h e saying reads essentially the s a m e way in the parallel in M a t t 2 0 : 2 5 .

12

B u t t h e parallel in Luke reads differently a n d

in a distinctive way: " T h e kings o f the Gentiles exercise lordship over t h e m ; a n d t h o s e in authority over t h e m are called 'benefactors'" (Luke 22:25).

13

L u k e s revision o f his M a r k a n source creates a m e a s u r e o f awk­ wardness. I n M a r k t h e transition from 1 0 : 4 2 to 10:43 is n a t u r a l : " . . . the Gentiles lord it over t h e m , a n d their great m e n exercise authority over t h e m . B u t it shall n o t b e so a m o n g y o u . . . " B u t in Luke t h e addition at the c o n c l u s i o n o f 2 2 : 2 5 , "and t h o s e in authority over t h e m are called 'benefactors"' creates an i n c o n g r u i t y with t h e antithesis in 2 2 : 2 6 : " B u t n o t so with y o u . . . "

1 4

Shouldn't t h e disciples o f Jesus s e e k to b e b e n e f a c ­

tors, o r doers o f g o o d ? As we shall see, t h e y in fact b e c o m e such in Luke's second volume, the b o o k o f Acts.

15

T h e tension is resolved, o f course, b e c a u s e Luke's readers would readily interpret t h e reference to "benefactors" in the c o n t e x t o f rulers a n d the mighty, t h e v e r y people w h o lord it over others, defining their

12. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them." 4

13. According to the UBSGNT : b

δε ε Ί π ε ν α υ τ ο Ί ^ '

01 β α σ ι λ έ α

τών

εθνών

κ υ ρ ι ε ύ ο υ σ ι ν α υ τ ώ ν και οι έ ξ ο υ σ ι ά ζ ο ν τ ε ^ α υ τ ώ ν ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ α ι κ α λ ο ύ ν τ α ι .

14. There are several ambiguities in Lukes form of the saying. For discussion of these interpretive difficulties, see Lull, "Servant-Benefactor." 15. Lull ("Servant-Benefactor," 303-4) rightly concludes that the Lukan Evangelist tries to show in Luke-Acts that the Greco-Roman benefactor ideal is exemplified in Jesus and his servants/representatives.

126

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

tyrannical rule with the e u p h e m i s m "benefaction." L u k e s readers k n e w that the epithet "benefactor" ( ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς ) was c o m m o n l y bestowed o n gods, kings, and wealthy and powerful m e n w h o contributed to s o c i e t y There are m a n y examples from the literature and inscriptions o f late antiquity.

16

F o r example, the people "conceived that ( U r a n u s ) w h o

taught such things p a r t o o k o f the nature o f the gods [θείας μετέχειν φ ύ σ ε ω ς ] , a n d after he had passed from a m o n g m e n they a c c o r d e d to h i m i m m o r t a l h o n o r s [ α θ ά ν α τ ο υ ς τ ι μ ά ς ] , b o t h b e c a u s e o f his b e n e f a c t i o n s [ ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ς ] and b e c a u s e o f his knowledge o f the stars" ( D i o d o r u s Siculus, Discourses

3 . 5 6 . 5 ) . Hercules t o o is called "benefactor

to m o r t a l s and great friend [ ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς βροτοΤσι και μ έ γ α ς φ ί λ ο ς ] " (Euripides, Heracl.

1252).

17

A g o o d m a n is "one w h o takes delight in b e s t o w i n g benefits [ χ α ί ­ ρ ο ν τ α ε ύ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ι ς ] — a trait that a p p r o a c h e s m o s t n e a r l y to the divine nature [ τ η ς τ ώ ν θ ε ώ ν φ ύ σ ε ω ς ] " ( D i o C h r y s o s t o m , 2 Regn. 2 6 ) .

1 8

The

first-century S t e r t i n i u s X e n o p h o n is a p r o m i n e n t e x a m p l e , w h o was h o n o r e d as ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς b y t h e p e o p l e o f C o s with a n u m b e r o f i n s c r i p ­ tions.

19

S u c h t h i n k i n g as this likely lay b e h i n d m a n y o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s

o f t h e b e n e f a c t i o n s o f rulers a n d great m e n a n d w o m e n . Accordingly, D e m o s t h e n e s calls Philip II o f M a c e d o n , father o f A l e x a n d e r t h e Great, " F r i e n d , B e n e f a c t o r , a n d S a v i o r " o f t h e people o f T h e s s a l o n i c a (Cor. 4 3 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e epigraphic e v i d e n c e related to A l e x a n d e r is l i m i t e d , o n e c a n find s i m i l a r language used in reference to P h i l i p s f a m o u s s o n : " K i n g A l e x a n d e r . . . was especially b e n e f i c e n t [ ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ α ι ] to the G r e e k cities . . . " ( D i o d o r u s Siculus, Discourses

1 7 . 2 4 . 1 ) ; "Alexander m i t i g a t e d t h e

lot o f t h e s e u n f o r t u n a t e p e r s o n s b y such b e n e f a c t i o n s [ ε ύ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ι ς ] in k e e p i n g with his natural k i n d n e s s " ( D i o d o r u s Siculus,

Discourses

16. I depend on the following works: Bertram, "Ευεργέτης"; Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9; Spicq, "ευεργεσία, κτλ"; Danker, "Endangered Benefactor"; Danker, Benefactor, 323-24; Heisserer, Alexander; Lull, "Servant-Benefactor"; Neyrey, Render to God, 82-106; Neyrey, "God, Benefactor and Patron"; Nock, "Soter and Euergetes"; and Rajak, "Benefactors." 17. For other examples of inscriptions in honor of various gods as benefactors, see Danker, Benefactor, 73-74 (Aphrodite), 176-85 (Isis), 186-91 (Serapis), 192-96 (Asklepios). 18. Text and translation based on Cohoon, Dio Chrysostom 1,66-67. 19. See Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos, nos. 46, 84-94, and 345. For discus­ sion of this person, the well known physician of Claudius, who eventually poisoned the emperor, see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 253.

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

127

1 7 . 6 9 . 9 ) ; A l e x a n d e r "saw o n l y o n e h o p e o f g a i n i n g h i s wish, i f h e m i g h t gain t h e soldiers' great goodwill t h r o u g h b e n e f i c e n c e [δια TX\S ευεργεσία^]" ( D i o d o r u s Siculus, Discourses

20

17.94.3).

Alexander's successors (esp. P t o l e m y a n d Seleucus a n d their respec­ tive dynasties) are routinely referred t o as benefactors a n d saviors; i n ­ deed, several o f t h e m adopted these titles as their formal regal n a m e s , as seen in t h e following examples: P t o l e m y I S o t e r ( 3 6 7 - 2 8 2 ) ; Euergetes ( 2 8 4 - 2 2 1 ) ;

2 2

2 1

Ptolemy III

P t o l e m y V I I I Euergetes I I ( 1 8 2 - 1 1 6 ) ;

2 3

Ptolemy

I X Soter I I ( 1 4 2 - 8 0 ) ; A n t i o c h u s I Soter ( 2 8 0 - 2 6 1 ) ; Seleucus I I I Soter ( 2 2 6 - 2 2 3 ) ; D e m e t r i u s I Soter ( 1 6 2 - 1 5 0 ) .

2 4

The R o m a n e m p e r o r s adopted t h e n o m e n c l a t u r e . Julius C a e s a r (ruled 4 8 - 4 4 B C E ) is n a m e d " s a v i o r and benefactor" in several cities (e.g., IG V I I I . 1 8 3 5 ; X I I . 5 , 5 5 6 ; IGR 9 . 5 7 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 ; CIA 3 . 4 2 8 ) .

25

Caesar's succes­

sor, O c t a v i a n , w h o b e c o m e s Caesar Augustus (absolute rule 31 B C E - 1 4 C E ) , is also frequently called benefactor. I n o n e inscription his full title

is given as Αυτοκράτωρ Καίσαρ Σεβαστός σωτηρ και ευεργέτης· (SB 8 8 9 7 . 1 ) : " E m p e r o r C a e s a r Augustus, Savior a n d Benefactor." O n e also t h i n k s o f t h e Priene calendar inscription (OGIS

4 5 8 ) , w h i c h was

i n s c r i b e d a n d dedicated in h o n o r o f "the birthday o f t h e m o s t divine Caesar" ( 1 . 4 - 5 ; cf. 1.17). This inscription proclaims "Augustus, w h o m ( P r o v i d e n c e ) filled with virtue for the benefit o f h u m a n s [ε\ς εύεργεσίαν ανθρώπων], sending h i m as a savior [σωτήρ]..." (11.34; cf. 11.46). There are m a n y o t h e r examples (e.g., IGR 1 . 9 0 1 , 1 2 9 4 ; 3.426; 4 . 2 0 1 [because o f his b e n e f a c t i o n s t o all humanity, t h e people o f Ilium describe Augustus as " B e n e f a c t o r " a n d "Savior"—εύεργέτην και σωτήρα]; 4 . 3 1 1 , 3 1 2 ; CIA 3 . 5 7 5 , 5 7 6 ; IG 7 . 1 8 3 6 ) . Even Philo t h e J e w speaks o f Augustus as "the 20. Text and translation based on Welles, Diodorus of Sicily VIII, 182-85, 318-19, 390-91. 21. See SIG 390.26-30:"... the savior Ptolemy, with godlike honors, and on account of his public benefactions [δια τάς κοινά^ εύεργεσία$]" 22. One inscribed dedication reads: "May it please the priests of the land that the honors hitherto rendered in the sanctuary (of Osiris) to King Ptolemy and Queen Berenice, gods (and) benefactors [θεο^ εύεργέται^]" (OGIS 56.20-21; ET based on Spicq, "ευεργεσία," 110). 23. This king is mentioned in the prologue to Sirach: "When I came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes [του Ευεργέτου Βασιλέως] and stayed for some time, I found opportunity for no little instruction." 24. All of these dates are BCE. 25. See Taylor, Divinity of the Roman Emperor, 267-83; P. Bureth, Titulatures, 21-25.

128

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

first, the greatest, and universal b e n e f a c t o r [ π ρ ώ τ ο ς και μ έ γ ι σ τ ο ς και KOIVOS

ευεργέτης]"

(Legat.

149).

26

T h e title " B e n e f a c t o r " is applied to m o s t o f the Julian e m p e r o r s and their successors. Tiberius, w h o was e m p e r o r during Jesus' m i n ­ istry, is described as "founder o f the city and benefactor o f the world 27

[ ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ η υ τ ο υ κ ό σ μ ο υ ] " (SEG 3 6 [ 1 9 8 6 ] 1 0 9 2 ) . G e r m a n i c u s , a d o p t e d son o f T i b e r i u s , c o m p l a i n s o f h o n o r s bestowed o n himself, presumably b e c a u s e such practice detracts from his father the emperor. H e decrees (19 CE): Proclamation of Germanicus Caesar, son of Augustus and grand­ son of the deified Augustus, Proconsul. Your goodwill, which you display on all occasions when you see me, I welcome, but your ac­ clamations, which for me are invidious and such as are addressed to gods, I altogether deprecate. For they are appropriate only to him who is actually the savior and benefactor [τώι σωτήρι . . . ευεργέτη] of the whole human race, my father, and to his mother, my grandmother... , 28

A n d o f N e r o we read: " T h e g o o d god [ό α γ α θ ό ς δ α ί μ ω ν ] o f the inhabited world, besides all the g o o d things with which h e benefited [εύεργέτησευ] Egypt, sent to us T i b e r i u s Claudius Balbillus" 6 6 6 . 2 - 7 ) ; " T o the Savior and B e n e f a c t o r o f the inhabited world σωτήρι

και ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η rfjs ο ι κ ο υ μ έ ν η ^ ] " (OGIS

(OGIS [τω

6 6 8 . 5 ) ; "on a c c o u n t

o f goodwill I offer b e n e f a c t i o n [ ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ ώ ] " (OGIS

8 1 4 . 2 2 - 2 3 ) . In

26. For more examples and discussion, see Winter,"Octavian/Augustus"; Schowalter, "Written in Stone." 27. For discussion, see Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9, no. 10. 28. Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, 2:76-79 (no. 211). There are several examples where officials are called "Benefactor": The governor of Oxyrhynchus, who is petitioned, is called "Benefactor" (P.Oxy. 38.13 [49-50 CE]). The people of Clarus honor Governor Quintus Tullius: "Benefactor of the Greeks and patron of the people" (SEG 37 [1987] 958 [61-58 BCE]; for discussion, see Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9.6). Prominent men and women for various services and benefactions are called "Benefactor": "The people of Mallos (honor) Demeas, son of Hermocrates, who has been a public bene­ factor [κοινού εύεργέτηυ] and who has held public office for the salvation of the people" (Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9.2 [marble statue base]); "The people (honor) Dionysius, the son of Dionysius, who is a good man with regard to the body of citizens and a benefactor of the people [εύεργέτηυ του δήμου]" (Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9.3); and "The people (honor) Menippus, (son) of Apollonides . . . who is a benefactor and in the interests of the body of citizens zealous and devoted to (their) good and at the head of the fatherland in times of necessity" (SEG 37 [1987] 957; for discussion, see Llewelyn, ed., New Documents 9.4).

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

A l e x a n d r i a t h e newly a c c l a i m e d Vespasian is hailed as "savior and b e n e ­ factor [ σ ω τ η ρ και ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς ] . "

29

Even H e r o d the Great was k n o w n in

the R o m a n E m p i r e as a "Benefactor."

30

The c u s t o m o f bestowing t h e title " B e n e f a c t o r " o n a ruler o r o n a well respected person in a given city was k n o w n to Jews o f late antiqui­ ty.

31

O n e Jewish writer speaks o f a m a n "who was the b e n e f a c t o r o f the

city [ τ ο ν ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν τ η ς π ό λ ε ω ς ] , the protector o f his fellow c o u n t r y ­ m e n , a n d a zealot for the laws" (2 M a c e 4 : 2 ) . A n o t h e r recounts a letter o f P t o l e m y I V Philopator (ruled 2 2 1 - 2 0 3 B C E ) , w h o c o m p l a i n s o f his Jewish subjects in Alexandria: " B y m a i n t a i n i n g their manifest ill-will t o ­ ward us, t h e y b e c o m e the o n l y people a m o n g all nations w h o h o l d their heads high in defiance o f kings a n d their o w n benefactors [ τ ο 7 ς ε α υ τ ώ ν ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ α ι ς ] , a n d are unwilling to regard any action as sincere" (3 M a c e 3 : 1 9 ) . Later, a m u c h repentant P t o l e m y warns his followers w h o wish to destroy t h e Jews: "You are c o m m i t t i n g treason and surpassing tyrants in cruelty; a n d even m e , your b e n e f a c t o r [ τ ο ν υ μ ώ ν ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν ] , you are n o w attempting to deprive o f d o m i n i o n and life b y secretly devising acts o f n o advantage to the k i n g d o m " (3 M a c e 6 : 2 4 ) . T h e author o f the Active W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n c o m p l a i n s o f h o w the Egyptians treated t h e Hebrews: "Others h a d refused to receive strang­ ers w h e n t h e y c a m e to t h e m , but these m a d e slaves o f guests w h o were their benefactors [ ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ α ς ] " ( W i s 19:14). Philo described true wor­ shippers as t h o s e w h o " h o n o r G o d , their B e n e f a c t o r a n d Savior" [ τ ο ν ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν και σ ω τ ή ρ α θεον]" (Spec.

1.272). Elsewhere, Philo speaks

angrily o f t h e savagery a n d hypocrisy o f E m p e r o r Gaius Caligula, "now l o o k e d u p o n as S a v i o r a n d B e n e f a c t o r [b σ ω τ η ρ και ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς ] ; a n d w h o was e x p e c t e d to shower down s o m e fresh and everlasting springs o f benefits u p o n all Asia a n d Europe, so as to e n d o w t h e inhabitants with inalienable happiness a n d prosperity" (Legat.

2 2 ) . Josephus also

k n o w s the word a n d c o n c e p t , m a k i n g use o f ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς m o r e than three dozen t i m e s

32

a n d the c o g n a t e words ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ("benefaction") a n d

ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ έ ω ("to benefit") a n o t h e r seventy t i m e s o r so. 29. As cited by Nock,"Soter and Euergetes," 133 n. 20. 30. Jacobson, "King Herod." 31. McLaren, "Jews and the Imperial Cult." 32. Josephus bitterly complains of the rebels "as though they had been the benefac­ tors and saviors of the city [ώς ευεργέται και σωτήρες της πόλεως]" (J.W. 4.146). Implicit in the context is a contrast to the more noble Romans, who had for a long time been friends and genuine benefactors of the Jewish state.

129

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

130

O f course, in the Jewish m i n d the greatest b e n e f a c t o r is G o d h i m ­ self. T h e "deeds and wonders" ( V n i K ^ S 3 ]

Vmb'bu)

o f Ps 7 8 : 1 1 are

called "benefactions and wonders" ( τ ω ν ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ι ώ ν αυτοΐι και

τών

θ α υ μ ά σ ι ω ν α υ τ ο ΐ ι ) in the G r e e k version ( L X X Ps 7 7 : 1 1 ) . T h e author o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n speaks o f Israel being r e m i n d e d "lest they should fall into deep forgetfulness and b e c o m e unresponsive to ( G o d s ) kindness [ ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ^ ] " ( W i s 16:11) and speaks o f creation itself, which "in kindness [εύεργεσίαν] relaxes on b e h a l f o f those w h o trust in" G o d (Wis 16:24). Early Christians were also acquainted with the language o f b e n e ­ factor and benefaction. T h e author o f 1 Clement

praises G o d : "You alone

are the B e n e f a c t o r o f spirits and the G o d o f all flesh [μόνον ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν π ν ε υ μ ά τ ω ν και θεον πάσης" σ α ρ κ ό ς ] , w h o looks into the depths, w h o scans the works o f m a n ; the Helper o f those w h o are in peril, the Savior o f those in despair; the C r e a t o r and Guardian o f every spirit" (2

Clem.

5 9 : 3 ) . In the Active Acts of Pilate, the governor, in a rage, says to the Jews: "Always has your nation b e e n rebellious, and you speak against your benefactors [τό\ς

ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ α ι ^ υ μ ώ ν ] " (9:2). In this context, o f course,

the "benefactors" to w h o m the frustrated governor refers are h i m s e l f and the rest o f the R o m a n authority.

T H E A P O S T L E S AS J E S U S ' A M B A S S A D O R S In the N e w Testament itself "benefactor" ( ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς ) o c c u r s but o n c e , in the already cited Luke 2 2 : 2 5 : " T h e kings o f the Gentiles exercise lord­ ship over t h e m ; and those in authority over t h e m are called b e n e f a c t o r s ' [ευεργέται]."

33

T h e v o c a b u l a r y o f benefaction ( ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ έ ω , ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ,

ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η ς ) does not o c c u r in the o t h e r N e w Testament Gospels. But it does o c c u r in two i m p o r t a n t passages in the b o o k o f A c t s .

34

In the first passage, the apostles respond to those w h o arrested and i m p r i s o n e d t h e m for c o n t i n u i n g to proclaim Jesus as Messiah and as resurrected, and for healing in his n a m e (Acts 4 : 1 - 2 2 ) . W h e n asked by

33. For an argument that Jesus would have known an Aramaic form of the epithet ευεργέτης, see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 253-54. Deissmann argues that Seleucid and Ptolemaic coins, bearing the inscription ευεργέτης, were still in circula­ tion in Israel or nearby in the time of Jesus. 34. The only other place in the New Testament where this language occurs is in 1 Tim 6:2,"those who benefit by their service [της ευεργεσίας]."

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

what authority Peter had healed the crippled m a n (cf. Acts 3 : 1 - 2 6 ) , the apostle replied: Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed [ετπ ευεργεσία] done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed [σέσοοται], be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. (Acts 4:8b-10) In t h e s e c o n d passage Peter is again speaking, this t i m e to C o r n e l i u s the c e n t u r i o n attached to t h e Italian c o h o r t in Caesarea M a r i t i m a . H e had s u m m o n e d Peter to explain t h e way o f G o d (Acts 1 0 : 1 - 3 3 ) . Peter tells t h e centurion: You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (this one is Lord of all), the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee af­ ter the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed [ευεργετών και Ίώμενος πάντας τους καταδυναστευομένους] by the devil, for God was with him. (Acts 10:36-38) 35

Attentive readers o f L u k e - A c t s in all probability will have recalled the distinctive statement o f t h e Lukan Jesus: "those in authority over t h e m are called b e n e f a c t o r s ' " (Luke 2 2 : 2 5 ) . In the c o n t e x t o f Luke 2 2 : 2 4 - 2 6 , Jesus has a d m o n i s h e d his disciples to avoid the examples o f the "kings o f the Gentiles" w h o "exercise lordship over" their subjects and desire to b e "called 'benefactors!" But Jesus has n o t forbidden his disciples to be benefactors

and to b e conveyors o f benefaction.

This is what we see in t h e

b o o k o f Acts.

35. The RSV translates the parenthetical words, "he is Lord of all," but the Greek text (ούτος έστιυ πάντων κύριος) should be rendered "this one is Lord of all," as is rightly argued by Rowe, "Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult," 291-93. The claim that Jesus is "Lord of all" echoes similar claims made on behalf of the Roman emperors, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.12, where of the emperor Nero it is said: ο πάντων κύριος Κοασαρ ("Caesar is Lord of all"); as well as an inscription that reads: b του παντός κόσμου κύριος Νέρων ("Nero is the Lord of the whole world"); and Martial, Epigramm. 8.2.5-6, who says Janus promised Domitian that he would become omni terrarium domino deoque ("Lord and God of the whole world").

131

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

132

P e t e r s healing o f the crippled m a n is a b e n e f a c t i o n ( ε υ ε ρ γ ε σ ί α ) , achieved in the n a m e o f Jesus Messiah, w h o m G o d has raised up. T h e m i n i s t r y o f Jesus h i m s e l f is described in t e r m s o f "doing g o o d " and "healing all w h o were oppressed by the devil."

36

N o t e that the Lukan

Peter does n o t say "oppressed b y R o m e " or "oppressed b y Rome's client rulers." K i n g Jesus, humanity's true "Benefactor," is n o t at war with the kings o f the e a r t h ;

37

h e is at war with t h o s e agents w h o represent hu­

manity's truest and m o s t dangerous e n e m i e s . T h e c o n t i n u i n g m i n i s t r y o f the risen Jesus is a redemptive ministry, o n e o f seeking and saving. To d o this Jesus sends forth his apostles, who, as true emissaries o f a king, function as ambassadors. T h e greatest o f these a m b a s s a d o r s in the b o o k o f A c t s is Paul. A few t i m e s in his letters Paul refers to h i m s e l f as an ambassador. T h r e e passages are o f special interest: So we are ambassadors [ττρεσβευομεν] for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20) Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador [πρεσβεύω] in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. (Eph 6:18-20) Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for loves sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an ambassador [πρεσβύτης] and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus—I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment. (Phlm 8 - 1 0 ) In the first passage Paul's use o f the verb π ρ ε σ β ε ύ ω clearly implies an ambassadorial function o n the part o f h i m s e l f and the o t h e r apostles. 36. It should be pointed out that healings were in fact among the benefactions of the Roman emperors. We think of the well-known case where Vespasian, having gained the throne, successfully heals a blind man and a lame man (Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2-3). 37. Again see Rowe, "Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult," 299-300. Rowe concludes that the Evangelists understanding approximates that of Tertullian, who regarded Caesar as temporal κύριος, but only Jesus as Kiipios πάντων (as in Acts 10:36). See Tertullian, Apol. 34.1: "I will plainly call the emperor dominus, but only in the common manner when I am not forced to call him dominus in the sense of God" (as cited by Rowe).

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

The b a s i c m e a n i n g o f π ρ ε σ β ε ύ ω is to b e an elder (cf. L S J ) , but t h e c o n ­ text m a k e s it clear that Paul is n o t referring to h i m s e l f and others as 4

38

m e r e l y elders," but is referring to their w o r k as ambassadors for Jesus the Messiah. T h r o u g h his ambassadors, G o d m a k e s his c o n c i l i a t o r y ap­ peals to h u m a n s (such as t h o s e in C o r i n t h ) . In t h e s e c o n d a n d third passages Paul describes h i m s e l f as "an a m ­ bassador in chains" and as "an a m b a s s a d o r and n o w a prisoner." A s in m o d e r n t i m e s , so in antiquity, ambassadors were i m m u n e from arrest and i m p r i s o n m e n t . B u t o f course Paul is n o a m b a s s a d o r in the eyes o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , any m o r e t h a n Jesus is a king. Nevertheless, Paul b e ­ lieves h e is an a m b a s s a d o r in t h e truest sense, for he serves t h e true K i n g and t h e t r u e S o n o f G o d . Accordingly, h e uses the language associated with t h e tasks o f t h e a m b a s s a d o r : h e must speak, declare, appeal, a n d intercede, to do and say whatever it takes, to m a k e k n o w n the gospel, t h e g o o d news o f his king. Moreover, as an a m b a s s a d o r o f Jesus, the apostle u n d e r s t o o d h i m s e l f as b e n e f a c t o r .

39

It should also b e m e n t i o n e d that the c o n c e p t o f a m b a s s a d o r does n o t stand in tension with the status and function o f apostle. Indeed, the functions o f a m b a s s a d o r and apostle are complementary, for n o r m a l l y a m b a s s a d o r s are "sent" and so, in fact, are apostles. T h e language a n d i m a g e r y o f a m b a s s a d o r and envoy were k n o w n to a n c i e n t Israel and its literature: " T h e n Israel sent messengers [πρέσ— fa\s]

to S i h o n king o f the A m o r i t e s , saying . . . " ( N u m 2 1 : 2 2 ) . In the

G r e e k Bible t h e t e r m is customarily π ρ έ σ β η . There are m a n y examples in t h e O l d Testament, t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus. In t h e Active Letter

ofAristeas

we read:

On the seventh day much more extensive preparations were made, and many others were present from the different cities, among them a large number of ambassadors [πρέσβεις]. When an opportunity occurred, the king asked the first of those who had not yet been questioned how he [could] avoid being deceived by fallacious reasoning. (Let. Arts. 2 7 5 ) 40

38. As is the meaning of πρεσβυτέριου in Luke 22:66 and Acts 22:5. 39. On this point, see Joubert, Paul as Benefactor; Danker and Jewett, "Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor." 40. See also Jannes and Jambres A 3:5-7, part of which reads: "emissaries [πρεσβε \ς] from the king arrived."

133

134

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Philo describes the plea o f the Jewish people: "Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not de­ stroy the peace which exists. The honor of the emperor is not identical with dishonor to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desir­ ous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter [έ πι στολή ν], or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors [πρέσβεις], may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master." But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared lest they might in reality go on an embassy [πρεσβευσάμενοι] to the emperor, and might impeach him. (Philo, Legat. 3 0 1 - 3 0 2 ) Josephus narrates: When, therefore, they were thus afflicted, and found no end of the barbarous treatment they met with among the Greeks, they sent ambassadors [έ πρέσβευσα ντο] to Caesar on those accounts; who gave them the same privileges as they had before, and sent letters to the same purpose to the governors of the provinces, copies of which I subjoin here, as testimonials [μαρτυρία] of the ancient favorable disposition the Roman emperors had towards us . . . When these ambassadors had reached Rome, they had op­ portunity of delivering their letters to Caesar [τα γράμματα τ ω Καίσαρα], because they found him reconciled to Herod. (Ant. 16.161,335) Early Christian literature employs the language as well. B o t h Igna tius and Polycarp speak o f sending an ambassador: Since it has been reported to me that in answer to your prayer and the compassion which you have in Christ Jesus the church at Antioch in Syria is at peace, it is appropriate for you, as a church of God, to appoint a deacon to go there on a mission as Gods ambassador [εις το πρεσβεύσαι έκε7 θεου πρεσβείαν], to con­ gratulate them when they have assembled together and to glorify the Name. (Ign. Phld. 10:1) Both you and Ignatius have written me that if anyone is traveling to Syria, he should take your letter along also. This I will do, if I get a good opportunity, either myself or the one whom I will

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

send as an ambassador [πρεσβεύσοντα], on your behalf as well as ours. (Pol Phil. 13:1) A n d S e d r a c h petitions the archangel M i c h a e l : Hearken to me, Ο powerful chief, and help me and be my ambas­ sador [πρέσβευσα 1 ], so that God may have mercy on the world. (Apoc. Sedr. 14: l ) 4 1

In the b o o k o f Acts, Paul functions as ambassador, though h e b e ­ gins his ambassadorial life as an o p p o n e n t o f Jesus and his followers. H e addresses his fellow Jews, w h o had attacked h i m in the temple precincts, and describes his life prior to his conversion: I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women as the high priest and the whole council of elders bear me witness [b αρχιερείς μαρτυρεί μοι και πάν τ ο πρεσβυτέριον]. From them I received letters [παρ' ώ ν και έπιστολά^ δεξάμενο^] to the brethren, and I journeyed to Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished. (Acts 22:4-5) C o m m i s s i o n e d with letters ( έ π ι σ τ ο λ ά ^ ) , originating from the highest Jewish authorities, Paul was dispatched to D a m a s c u s to seek out and discipline fellow Jews w h o had e m b r a c e d the n e w heresy, bringing t h e m b a c k to Jerusalem to b e punished. T h e i m a g e r y o f ambassadors in p o s ­ session o f letters from authorities to exact juridical functions is attested in Josephus: These were the commands he gave them: when there came let­ ters [έπιστολαί] from his ambassadors at Rome [παρά τ ώ ν έν' Ρώμη πρέσβεων], whereby information was given that Acme was put to death at Caesars command, and that Antipater was condemned to die; however, they also wrote, that if Herod had a mind rather to banish him, Caesar permitted him so to do. (/. W. 1.166) 42

41. Although the Apocalypse of Sedrach probably originated as a Jewish work, it was preserved and glossed in Christian circles. 42. The function of ambassadors bearing letters is quite old. Among the afore­ mentioned meager epigraphic evidence of Alexander the Great we do find at least two inscriptions that refer to this function: "The people decreed: Concerning those things about which ambassadors [01 πρέσβεες· (sic)] give their report, those ambassadors who had been sent [άποστάλεντε^] to Alexander, and Alexander sent back his or­ der [διαγράφαν] . . . " (IG XII, 2, 526 [stoich. 36]; cf. Heisserer, Alexander, 38-39);

135

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Even m o r e interesting is Pauls s e c o n d telling o f his D a m a s c u s road conversion, which he relates to K i n g Agrippa II: And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. Thus I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests [μετ εξουσίας και επιτροπής της των αρχιερέων]. At mid­ day, Ο king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads." And I said, "Who are you, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus whom you are perse­ cuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness [προχειρίσασθαί σε υπηρέτην και μάρτυρα] to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you [εις ους εγώ αποστέλλω σε] to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts 26:11-18) Again we hear e c h o e s o f the language o f the functions o f the a m b a s ­ sador.

43

Just as K i n g Jesus performed acts o f benefaction, such as "healing all that were oppressed by the devil" (Acts 1 0 : 3 8 ) , so he has called Saul o f "King Antigonos to the council and the people of Eresos, greeting: Your ambassadors [oi παρ' υμών πρέσβεις] came to us and spoke, saying that the people, having re­ ceived the letter [έ πι στολή ν] that we wrote [έγράψαμεν] . . . " (JG XII, 2, 526 [stoich. 17]; cf. Heisserer, Alexander, 42-43). Functioning as an ambassador of Messiah Jesus, Paul too writes letters, giving instruction to God's people. 43. For examples of πρέσβεις ("ambassadors") and επιτρέπω ("commissioned" or "entrusted") in combination, see Josephus, J.W. 1.661; 2.80; Ant. 8.365; 20.7, 8. For examples of πρέσβεις or πρεσβεύω ("serving as ambassador") and γράμματα or έπιστολάς ("letters") in combination, see Philo, Legal 301-2; Josephus, Life 310; Ant. 16.161,335; 17.182,300; 20.8. For examples of πρέσβεις and αποστέλλω ("send") in combination, see LXX Num 21:21; 22:5; Deut 2:26; Isa 39:1 ("the king of Babylonia, sent [άπέστειλεν] letters [έπιστολάς] and ambassadors [πρέσβεις] and gifts"); Isa 57:9; 1 Mace 9:70; 11:9; 13:14; Josephus, Ant 17.182,300; 20.8. In an inscription commemo­ rating Nero's letter to Rhodes we find πρέσβεις ("ambassadors"), αποστέλλω ("to send"), and έπιστολάς ("letters"); cf. SIG 810.4,11.

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

137

Tarsus, to o p e n t h e eyes o f the lost, "that t h e y m a y turn from darkness to light a n d from t h e p o w e r o f Satan to G o d , that t h e y m a y receive forgive­ ness o f sins " Presenting Jesus a n d his apostles, such as Peter a n d Paul, in explicitly political t e r m s m a y strike m o d e r n s as strange, m o d e r n s w h o are a c c u s ­ t o m e d to place things political a n d things religious in carefully separated and isolated spheres. B u t the world o f Jesus a n d his apostolic a m b a s ­ sadors entertained n o such dichotomy. In the ancient world religion and politics were inextricably intertwined, with the king ( o r C a e s a r ) func­ tioning as priest, offering sacrifice a n d petitioning the gods. W e should b e a r in m i n d that t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r assumed the title, a m o n g others, o f Pontifex M a x i m u s , o r "High Priest." T h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f Jesus as king, w h o has sent his apostles and ambassadors, to p r o c l a i m "good news" ( ε υ α γ γ ε λ ί ο ν )

44

and to r e c o n c i l e

an estranged world to the o n e and true G o d , does indeed envision the mission o f t h e ambassador, w h o goes forth, b e a r i n g the message, will, and letters o f his sovereign. T h e Lukan Evangelist appears to have devel­ o p e d this t h e m e , perhaps m o r e than the o t h e r Evangelists.

45

44. The word "good news" or "gospel," whether in the singular (ευαγγελίου) or in the plural (ευαγγέλια), is a highly political word, yet sums up the essence of the mes­ sage of Jesus himself and the subsequent Christian proclamation. For more on this point, see Evans,"Marks Incipit." 45. The evangelists ambassadorial portrait of Paul may well have been part of a legal-political strategy in defense of the apostle. For discussion of this hypothesis, see Mauck, Paul on Trial. Mauck argues that Acts was written primarily to defend Paul in his forthcoming trial in Rome (Acts 25:6-12; 28:16-22). The incipits of Luke (1:1-4; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.1-3) and Acts (1:1-2; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.1), as well as the quasilegal statements made by Paul (e.g., Acts 24:3; 26:25; cf. Diogn. 1:1), support Maucks thesis. See also Omerzu, Der Prozefi des Paulus. Omerzu argues that Acts 21-25 provide a historically plausible account of Pauls arrest, interrogation, detention, and appeal to the Roman emperor.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bertram,G."Ευεργέτης"In TDNT2:654-55. Bureth, P. Les titulatures imperiales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d'Egypte (30 a.C.-284p.C). Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1964. Cohoon, J. W. Dio Chrysostom I. LCL. London: William Heinemann, 1932. Danker, F. W Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982. . "The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts." In Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, edited by Κ. H. Richards, 39-48. SBLSP 20. Chico CA: Scholars, 1981. Danker, F. W, and R. Jewett. "Jesus as the Apocalyptic Benefactor in Second Thessalonians." In The Thessalonian Correspondence, edited by R. F. Collins, 486-98. BETL 87. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. London: Hodder & Stoughton/New York: Doran, 1927. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Evans, C. A."Marks Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel." JGRChJ 1 (2000) 67-81. Heisserer, A. J. Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980. Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri. II. Non-Literary Public Documents. LCL 282. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/London: Heinemann, 1934. Jacobson, D. M. "King Herod: Roman Citizen and Benefactor of Kos." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 13 (1993-1994) 31-35. Joubert, S. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Pauls Collection. WUNT 2.124. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Lightfoot, J. B., J. R. Harmer, and M. W Holmes. The Apostolic Fathers. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Llewelyn, S. R., editor. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Lull, D. J. "The Servant-Benefactor as Model of Greatness (Luke 22:24-30)." NovT 28 (1986)289-305. Mauck, J. W Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. McLaren, J. S."Jews and the Imperial Cult: From Augustus to Domitian."/SiVT 27 (2005) 257-78. Neyrey, J. H."God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity." JSNT 27 (2005) 465-92. Neyrey, J. H. Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Nock, A. D. "Soter and Euergetes." In The Joy of Study: Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant, edited by S. L. Johnson, 127-48. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Reprinted in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. 2 vols. Edited by Z. Stewart, 2:720-35. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Omerzu, H. Der Prozefi des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechthistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte. BZNW 115. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Paton, W R., and E. L. Hicks. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1990.

E V A N S — K i n g Jesus and His

Ambassadors

Rajak, Tessa. "Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora." In The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, by Tessa Rajak, 373-91. AGJU 48. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Rowe, C. K. "Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way through the Conundrum?" JSNT 27 (2005)279-300. Schowalter, D. "Written in Stone: A Prayer to Augustus" In Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology, edited by Mark Kiley, 159-64. London/New York: Routledge 1997. Spicq,C."ευεργεσία, εύεργετέω, ευεργέτης." In TLNT 2.107-13. Taylor, L. Ross. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Philological Monographs 1. Middletown, CT: American Philological Association, 1931. Welles, C. Bradford. Diodorus of Sicily VIII. LCL. London: William Heinemann, 1970. Winter, E. "Octavian/Augustus als Soter, Euergetes und Epiphanes: Die Datierung des Kalabscha-Tores." Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 130 (2003) 197-212 + tables XLVI-LL

139

5 "I Have Conquered the World" The Death of Jesus and the End of Empire in the Gospel of John

TOM THATCHER

[I] η the case of the Fourth Gospel, "passion' is a misnomer; Jesus controls and orchestrates the whole performance. 1

T

HIS PAPER WILL A R G U E that the F o u r t h G o s p e l s crucifixion story ( J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 ) is a carefully crafted response to the foundational

premises o f imperial power. Specifically, J o h n presents t h e death o f Jesus in a way that is calculated to deny the social values i n s c r i b e d in the cross, values that reflected the mythical substructure o f R o m a n rule. M o r e than a m e s s y and inefficient m e a n s o f execution, crucifixion was a carefully staged d r a m a that publicly p r o c l a i m e d the gospel o f conquest. W h i l e the N e w Testament authors deal with the scandal o f the cross in a variety o f ways, J o h n s response is notable for its c o m p l e t e reversal o f everything that crucifixion represents. Indeed, in t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l the n o r m a l public m e a n i n g o f the cross is profaned in a way that m a k e s C a e s a r and his agents helpless v i c t i m s o f the Christ w h o c o n q u e r e d the world ( J o h n 1 6 : 3 3 ) .

2

1. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 489. 2. Throughout this paper, the name "John" will be used synonymously with "the Fourth Evangelist" in reference to that individual who produced the Fourth Gospel as we have it today. The specific identity of this individual, and the issue of whether the current text is a redaction of multiple sources and/or the last in a series of revisions, is irrelevant to this study.

140

T H A T C H E R — "I Have

Conquered

the

World"

To explore these claims a n d their implications, I will first highlight the special challenges that the F o u r t h G o s p e l presents to any v o l u m e o n " E m p i r e in t h e N e w Testament," t h e n p r o c e e d to outline a reading strategy that e x p o s e s b o t h t h e social values o f R o m a n crucifixion a n d J o h n s t e c h n i q u e s for reversing t h o s e values. This analysis will, I h o p e , reveal that J o h n s passion story is g r o u n d e d in t h e thesis that Christ is, in every way, greater than Caesar.

THE PROBLEM OF JOHN AND EMPIRE At first glance, any discussion o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l s response to empire s e e m s futile, simply b e c a u s e J o h n does n o t appear to b e particularly interested in R o m e . In fact, o n e c o u l d readily argue that the G o s p e l o f J o h n is essentially apolitical, o n t h e grounds that t h e interests o f t h e text are largely theological. T w o obvious aspects o f J o h n s presentation c o u l d b e cited in support o f this claim, o n e relating to his t r e a t m e n t o f traditional Jesus material that m i g h t b e used to c o n s t r u c t a t h e o r y o f empire, t h e o t h e r s t e m m i n g from the overtly christological interests o f his narrative. First, while the Synoptics include m a n y episodes a n d sayings that m i g h t i n f o r m a study o f Jesus' posture toward R o m e — o r at least a study o f the t h i n k i n g o f t h e respective Evangelists—John o m i t s m o s t o f this material. T h e F o u r t h G o s p e l says nothing, for example, about J o h n the B a p t i s t s a d m o n i t i o n that t a x collectors a n d soldiers should n o t abuse their p o w e r ( M a t t 3 : 7 - 1 2 ; Luke 3 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) , about Jesus ambiguous an­ swer to the question o f w h e t h e r Jews should pay imperial taxes ( M a r k 1 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) , about Christ's c o m m a n d that his disciples m u s t n o t abuse their authority like "the kings o f the Gentiles" (Luke 2 2 : 2 5 ) , or about the S a n h e d r i n s a c c u sat i on that Jesus is a threat to R o m e b e c a u s e h e portrays 3

h i m s e l f as "king" (Luke 2 3 : 2 ) . Further, in s o m e cases where J o h n a n d t h e Synoptics r e c o r d t h e s a m e o r similar events, J o h n s e e m s to consciously d i m i n i s h the political implications o f Jesus words and actions. F o r e x ­ ample, while Matthew, M a r k , a n d Luke record m o r e t h a n seventy differ3. For further obvious examples, the Fourth Gospel also omits Herod's execution of the Baptist (Mark 6:16-29), Jesus' assertion that Gods children should not be forced to pay temple taxes (Matt 17:24-27), Jesus prediction that Jerusalem will be "trampled by Gentiles" (Luke 21:24; cf. Mark 13:14), Jesus' promise that the disciples will "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29-30//Matt 19:28), Jesus' peculiar counsel, just before his arrest, that the disciples should sell their coats and buy swords (Luke 22:36-38), and Jesus' trial before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6-12).

141

142

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ent sayings o n "the k i n g d o m o f G o d " the J o h a n n i n e Jesus refers to the k i n g d o m only twice, b o t h t i m e s in the N i c o d e m u s story ( J o h n 3 ) . In that context, the obvious political implications o f this phrase are t h o r o u g h l y spiritualized by Jesus' insistence that "seeing/entering the k i n g d o m " fol­ lows rebirth "from above by water and spirit" ( J o h n 3 : 3 , 5 , 1 2 ) . This view is consistent with J o h n 18:36, where Jesus tells Pilate that his k i n g d o m is "not o f this world." Overall, the database for evaluating J o h n s thinking on the R o m a n E m p i r e appears to b e rather impoverished, at least when c o m p a r e d to the rich n u m b e r o f obvious links in the Synoptics. S e c o n d , and perhaps m o r e substantially, o n e could readily argue that worldly c o n c e r n s were o f little interest to the F o u r t h Evangelist, w h o s e e m s to b e obsessed with christological reflection and esoteric specula­ tions. J o h a n n i n e scholarship has traditionally b e e n driven b y C l e m e n t o f Alexandria's ( 1 9 0 s C E ) famous d i c t u m that J o h n wrote a "spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6Λ4.7),

a b o o k that focuses m o r e o n the

theological implications o f Christ's career than o n its relationship to a specific historical context. Following this precedent, in recent decades scholars have tended to highlight the narrative t e c h n i q u e and theologi­ cal tendencies o f the Evangelist, with less c o n c e r n about the interface between the Fourth G o s p e l and its imperial context. T h o s e studies that do focus on J o h n s historical b a c k g r o u n d have largely followed in the footsteps o f J. Louis Martyn's History

and Theology

in the Fourth

Gospel

( 1 9 6 8 ) , w h i c h reconstructs the J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y ' s conflicts with late-first c e n t u r y Judaism in detail but says next to n o t h i n g about J o h n s relationship to R o m e . In view o f these overriding interests—all o f which have p r o d u c e d fruitful and productive readings o f the J o h a n n i n e liter­ ature—scholars have tended to portray the G o s p e l o f J o h n as a Jewish d o c u m e n t with deeply christological c o n c e r n s , c o n c e r n s that left the e m p e r o r completely off J o h n s radar screen. Thus, the paucity o f political sayings and scenes in the F o u r t h Gospel, c o m b i n e d with the overt christological interests o f the b o o k , m i g h t b e taken to m e a n that J o h n cared very little about t h e affairs o f worldly governments. Yet such a c o n c l u s i o n would reflect a preference for the obvious over an interest in the whole story—less obliquely, J o h n s response to empire should not b e measured quantitatively

(simply in

t e r m s o f what his story includes o r excludes), but rather

qualitatively

(in t e r m s o f the way that he interprets the events and characters that he has c h o s e n to b r i n g to the r e a d e r s attention). As the narrator explicitly

T H A T C H E R — " J Have

Conquered

the

World"

states, t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l seeks to b r i n g the reader to saving faith in Jesus as "the Christ, t h e S o n o f G o d " ( J o h n 2 0 : 3 0 - 3 1 ) , yet closer inspection o f key events from Jesus' career reveals that J o h n s t h i n k i n g o n what it m e a n s t o b e " S o n o f G o d " was deeply influenced b y the cultural realities o f R o m a n rule. T h e s e k e y events include, for purposes o f the present discussion, Jesus crucifixion and death, which J o h n reinterprets c h r i s tologically b y reversing the imperial rhetoric inherent in the events o f public history. T h e r e m a i n d e r o f this essay will argue that J o h n s crucifixion story m a y b e read at two levels, and that t h e interplay b e t w e e n these levels defines the christological value o f the text ( J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 ) . Specifically, J o h n subverts the n o r m a l public m e a n i n g o f crucifixion in a way that radically reverses t h e premises o f R o m a n power and, in the process, as­ serts that C h r i s t is in every way superior to Caesar. In this respect, o n e m a y say that J o h n s C h r i s t o l o g y is deeply intertwined with his response to R o m e , even t h o u g h h e excludes s o m e o f t h e m o r e obvious traditional sayings and stories o n the subject.

THE CROSS TELLS A STORY In J o h n s world, crucifixion was n o t o n l y a m e s s y and expensive way to dispatch with undesirable people, but also, and m u c h m o r e significantly, a b o o k m a r k in t h e fable o f R o m a n power. Every cross told a story; every story has a m o r a l ; the m o r a l o f the cross story was calculated to rational­ ize a n d m a i n t a i n t h e imperial status quo. T o explore t h e story i n s c r i b e d in t h e cross, it will b e helpful to briefly review Yael Zerubavel's discus­ sion o f the " c o m m e m o r a t i v e narratives" that undergird a society's public rituals, and also M i c h a e l Foucault's m o d e l o f "countermemory." Taken together, these approaches offer a reading strategy that exposes b o t h t h e values latent in R o m a n crucifixions and John's attempt to reverse t h o s e values in his presentation o f Christ's death. In h e r b o o k Recovered

Roots, Yael Zerubavel explores ways in w h i c h

t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y Zionists created an Israeli national heritage b y estab­ lishing points o f (dis)continuity with the history o f Judaism. Zerubavel focuses particularly o n the cultural values associated with three events that have played a formative role in Israeli consciousness: the m a s s sui­ cide o f Zealot rebels at M a s a d a in 7 2 C E ; the B a r K o k h b a Revolt against R o m e in 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 C E ; and, m o r e recently, t h e violent confrontation b e t w e e n Jewish settlers and Palestinians at Tel Hai in 1 9 2 0 . W h i l e t h e

143

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

144

historical details o f Zerubavel's discussion are fascinating in their own right, I will restrict m y remarks here to her theoretical m o d e l , which essentially seeks to explain h o w these and similar events b e c a m e signifi­ cant to Israels national identity. Zerubavel argues that the collective c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f a society manifests itself in various rituals o f c o m m e m o r a t i o n , activities that allow group m e m b e r s to "create, articulate, and negotiate their shared 4

m e m o r i e s o f particular events." Put a n o t h e r way, activities that preserve and express social m e m o r y b o t h generate and reinforce group values. This is particularly true when the rituals in question rehearse signifi­ cant o c c a s i o n s a n d / o r events from the g r o u p s c o m m o n past, such as the fireworks celebrations in the U n i t e d States on the F o u r t h o f July, which c o m m e m o r a t e the signing o f the Declaration o f I n d e p e n d e n c e in 1776. Similarly, in the religious sphere, participation in the Eucharist reinforces the c o m m o n beliefs o f Christian worshippers b y symbolically re-enacting Jesus' sacrificial death, a critical event in salvation history. A c c o r d i n g to Zerubavel, c o m m e m o r a t i v e rituals derive m u c h o f their emotive power from the fact that they tap into m y t h s o f origins. Every act o f c o m m e m o r a t i o n "reproduces a commemorative

narrative,

a story about a particular past that a c c o u n t s for this ritualized r e m e m ­ 5

b r a n c e and provides a m o r a l message for the group m e m b e r s . " W h e n Christians participate in the L o r d s Supper, they are aware that they are rehearsing events from the last night o f Jesus' life and, further, that these events are recorded in the sacred Scriptures o f the church. Similarly, the act o f lighting the candles on a m e n o r a h at H a n u k k a h rehearses an ancient story in which the M a c c a b e e s earned God's blessing for their faithful refusal to c o m p r o m i s e . Individual acts o f c o m m e m o r a t i o n , then, serve as indexes for the larger and deeper myths that provide group m e m b e r s with a sense o f identity. In a very real sense, the entire gospel story is rehearsed in the Eucharist, in the s a m e way that every citation o f the A m e r i c a n pledge o f allegiance taps into the whole history o f the United States. O f course, n o single act o f c o m m e m o r a t i o n expresses the total history and value system o f a particular culture. Normally, c o m m e m o ­ rative rituals focus on o n e m a j o r event and, when viewed in isolation, recall only a single chapter o f the given society's total image o f the past. 4. Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, 5. 5. Ibid., 6; emphasis original.

T H A T C H E R — " / Have

Conquered

the

World"

Thus, t h e lighting o f advent candles r e m i n d s Christian worshippers o f the b e g i n n i n g o f Jesus' story, while fasting on G o o d Friday recalls the final days o f his life. B u t o n e c o u l d hypothetically integrate these m a n y subplots into a single unified story, a "master c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative" built o n the f r a m e w o r k o f the lowest c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r o f social 6

values. In Z e r u b a v e l s m o d e l , a master c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative is not an e n c y c l o p e d i c a c c o u n t o f all historical events k n o w n to all m e m b e r s o f a g r o u p — n o t an exhaustive database o f the total past—but rather a b r o a d storyline that allows group m e m b e r s to c o m m u n i c a t e m e a n i n g ­ fully about w h o t h e y are o n the basis o f what they t h i n k has happened. "To fully appreciate the m e a n i n g o f individual c o m m e m o r a t i o n s , then, it is i m p o r t a n t to e x a m i n e t h e m within the framework o f the master 7

c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative" —the m e a n i n g o f the Eucharist is, in other words, ultimately derived from its location in the larger Christian story o f salvation history. Applied to the present discussion, Zerubavels m o d e l suggests that R o m a n crucifixion was not simply an act o f e x t r e m e violence but also a form o f "ritualized r e m e m b r a n c e , " a dramatic r e e n a c t m e n t o f R o m e s c o n q u e s t o f t h e world with pointed propaganda objectives. A c c o r d i n g to the cross script, every crucifixion tapped into a mythological narrative that m i g h t b e s u m m a r i z e d as follows: Many years ago, the gods elevated Rome to a special place of power and authority. The Romans used this privileged position to bring peace and order to the whole world. This thing you see hanging here was once a man, who rose up within an insolent race and dared to threaten the natural order of things by rebel­ ling against Rome. Of course, his insolence inevitably earned him the most extreme form of pain and shame imaginable. Don't try it. The

participants in any specific e x e c u t i o n played scripted roles

within this collective fable o f R o m a n power. Specifically, the officers over­ seeing t h e e x e c u t i o n played t h e part o f C a e s a r s legions, while the v i c t i m represented the larger social group o f w h i c h h e was a m e m b e r . Applied to the case at h a n d , every Jewish cross was planted in a master c o m ­ m e m o r a t i v e narrative that b o t h rationalized R o m a n power and discour­ aged future attempts at innovation. V i e w e d in this light, the J o h a n n i n e 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid., 7.

145

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Jesus says n o t h i n g r e m a r k a b l e w h e n h e c o m p a r e s his f o r t h c o m i n g death t o Rome's destruction o f the t e m p l e in 7 0 C E ( J o h n 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 ) , for in o n e sense the story o f Jerusalem's past and future destruction was already written into the autobiography o f every Jewish crucifixion v i c t i m . W h i l e all forms o f public e x e c u t i o n reflect a society's official vision o f j u s t i c e and order—at t h e very least b y eliminating individuals w h o engage in t a b o o behaviors—the cross story was particularly service­ able to Rome's agenda b e c a u s e its plot dramatized the t w o foundational principles o f totalitarian rule: physical deprivation and psychological denigration. As J a m e s C. Scott has noted, imperial d o m i n a t i o n i m p a c t s not o n l y the material lives o f t h e oppressed—physical a n d sexual abuse, seizure o f g o o d s and high taxation, laborious w o r k c o n d i t i o n s — b u t also, and perhaps m o r e significantly, t h e "dignity and a u t o n o m y " o f subject 8

people. B o t h elements o f d o m i n a t i o n figured p r o m i n e n t l y in t h e cross script, creating a dark storyline that epitomized Rome's power over the b o d i e s and identities o f subject people groups. T h e e x t r e m e brutality o f R o m a n crucifixions—which were s o m e ­ t i m e s preceded, as in Jesus' case, b y torture (see M a r k 1 5 : 1 5 - 2 0 ; J o h n 1 9 : 1 - 3 ) — i s evident from the paucity o f precise descriptions o f t h e practice in extant ancient literature. R o m a n authors say very little about the details o f this m o d e o f e x e c u t i o n , perhaps regarding the topic as an inappropriate t h e m e for polite conversation. C i c e r o , for example, states explicitly that 4

the executioner, the veiling of the head, and the very word cross" should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things or the endurance of them, but liability to them, nay, the mere mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen. (Rab. Post. 5.16) This is not to say, o f course, that R o m a n s viewed such v i o l e n c e as b e ­ neath their dignity; C i c e r o m e a n s , rather, that n o citizen o f the empire should b e forced to play a part in t h e d r a m a o f destructive c o n q u e s t that the cross represented. Indeed, it would b e illogical to crucify R o m a n s , for such an act would symbolize Rome's self-destruction, an empire c o n ­ quering itself.

8. Scott, Domination, 23.

T H A T C H E R — " J Have

Conquered

the

World"

147

W h i l e m o d e r n readers o f t h e Bible, recalling images from M e l G i b s o n s The Passion

of the Christ,

are m o s t impressed with the gratu­

itous v i o l e n c e o f crucifixions, t h e R o m a n s viewed t h e cross n o t o n l y as an "assault o n t h e b o d y " b u t also as what Scott calls a "ritual o f denigration"—for p u r p o s e s o f t h e present discussion, "a

commemorative

ritual o f denigration," o n e that r e e n a c t e d t h e humiliating subjugation 9

o f t h e v i c t i m s people group. A l a n K i r k has o b s e r v e d that "torturous deaths—such as crucifixion w a s — c a n b e highly symbolized forms o f violence, with t h e disfiguring, distending, d i s m e m b e r i n g , smashing, a n d perforation o f t h e h u m a n b o d y routinized a n d c h o r e o g r a p h e d to display 10

and e n a c t publicly t h e socially degraded status o f the v i c t i m . " W h i l e K i r k s formulation reflects his o w n substantial e n g a g e m e n t with c o n ­ t e m p o r a r y social s c i e n c e theory, t h e a n c i e n t R o m a n s were themselves keenly aware o f t h e s y m b o l i c e l e m e n t o f crucifixion a n d its potential propaganda value. Indeed, Q u i n t i l i a n notes that "every p u n i s h m e n t has less t o d o with t h e offense t h a n with the example." H e n c e , "when we [ R o m a n s ] crucify c r i m i n a l s the m o s t frequented roads are c h o s e n , where t h e greatest n u m b e r o f people c a n l o o k and b e seized b y this fear" (Decl

2 7 4 ) . T h e v i o l e n c e o f t h e cross went b e y o n d physical p u n i s h m e n t

to s y m b o l i c annihilation; the destruction o f t h e v i c t i m s flesh narrated Rome's capacity to suppress every threat to t h e state's entire sovereignty. F r o m a R o m a n perspective, t h e n , scourging and crucifixion were calculated to graphically illustrate the inevitable e n d o f any story that b e g a n with resistance to imperial rule. Ironically, Jewish ideology rein­ forced the values o f t h e cross script in a way that e n h a n c e d the p r o ­ p a g a n d a value o f t h e practice. This m e t h o d o f killing c o u l d readily b e interpreted t h r o u g h D e u t 2 1 : 2 2 - 2 3 , w h i c h stipulates that anyone w h o "hangs o n a tree" is u n d e r God's curse. W h i l e Paul c o u l d cleverly play o n this text to argue that C h r i s t " b e c a m e a curse for us" ( G a l 3 : 1 3 ) , less sympathetic readings would interpret the cross as a s y m b o l o f di­ v i n e j u d g m e n t . F o r example, two o f the D e a d S e a S c r o l l s — 4 Q 1 6 9 3 - 4 II (Pesher

Nahum)

a n d 1 1 Q T L X I V , 7 - 1 3 (Temple

Scroll)—insist

that

"the curse o f t h e tree" fell u p o n t h e 8 0 0 Jewish e n e m i e s o f A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s w h o were crucified as p u n i s h m e n t for their participation in a revolt in 8 8 B C E .

1 1

In b o t h c o n t e x t s , the authors o f the respective scrolls

9. Ibid. 10. Kirk, "Memory of Violence," 192. 11. Fitzmyer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

allude to D e u t e r o n o m y 21 as e v i d e n c e that G o d affirmed the j u d g m e n t o f the earthly authorities b y e x t e n d i n g his own curse to the c o n d e m n e d . These s e n t i m e n t s are amplified in t h e T e m p l e Scroll b y t h e assertion that "hanging on a tree" is fit p u n i s h m e n t for traitors and t h o s e w h o curse t h e people o f Israel, a n d in 4 Q 1 6 9 b y the application o f N a h 2:13 t o the 5

v i c t i m as well: "'See, I a m against you [the o n e crucified], says the Lord o f hosts" ( N R S V ) . A n y witness t o a R o m a n scourging and crucifixion could readily agree that G o d was n o t doing m u c h to b r i n g about a happy ending for t h e v i c t i m . Thus, crucifixions in R o m a n Palestine not o n l y eliminated dan­ gerous individuals in a highly s y m b o l i c way, but also e n c o u r a g e d the subject Jews t o perpetuate imperial propaganda within their own c o m ­ munity. Indeed, "in any established structure o f d o m i n a t i o n , it is plau­ sible t o i m a g i n e that subordinate groups are socialized b y their parents in the rituals o f h o m a g e that will keep t h e m from harm." Scott notes, for example, the "cruel p a r a d o x o f slavery": "it is in the interest o f slave m o t h e r s , w h o s e overriding wish is t o keep their children safe and by 12

their side, to train t h e m in the routines o f conformity." O n e could read­ ily i m a g i n e h o w well this would apply to any Jewish parent w h o beheld the spectacle o f a J e w h a n g i n g o n a R o m a n cross just outside the walls o f Jerusalem. Nailed to these two e m b e d d e d narratives, e n e m i e s o f the state and rejected b y G o d , Jewish crucifixion v i c t i m s were d e h u m a n i z e d and erased, discouraging any sequel t o their stories.

COUNTERING T H E CROSS W h e n c r u c i f i x i o n is v i e w e d as a c o m m e m o r a t i v e ritual that taps into collective m e m o r i e s o f R o m a n c o n q u e s t for p r o p a g a n d a p u r p o s e s , o n e c a n readily u n d e r s t a n d w h y Paul w o u l d refer t o t h e c r o s s as a "scandal" ( G a l 5 : 1 1 ; 1 C o r 1 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) . T h e s i m p l e fact that Jesus died b y crucifix­ ion c a r r i e d with it an i m p l i e d autobiography, suggesting t o G e n t i l e s that h e was a powerless v i c t i m o f t h e state and t o Jews that h e was c u r s e d b y G o d . F a c e d with this d i l e m m a , t h e Evangelists h a d t h r e e o p t i o n s in telling t h e s t o r y o f Jesus' d e m i s e . First, t h e y c o u l d simply d e n y that such a t h i n g h a p p e n e d , p e r h a p s i g n o r i n g t h e p a s s i o n s t o r y altogether. W h i l e it is difficult for m o d e r n readers t o i m a g i n e what t h e c a n o n i c a l G o s p e l s would l o o k like w i t h o u t G o o d Friday, this strategy

12. Scott, Domination, 24.

T H A T C H E R — " I Have

Conquered

w o r k e d quite well for t h e a u t h o r s o f t h e Gospel a d o c u m e n t existed, Q .

13

the

World"

of Thomas

149 and, i f s u c h

S e c o n d , t h e Evangelists c o u l d r e c o u n t t h e

b a s i c events o f C a l v a r y w h i l e a d d i n g e l e m e n t s that w o u l d disrupt t h e logic o f t h e c r u c i f i x i o n plot. This strategy is n o t a b l e in t h e S y n o p t i c s , w h i c h d e c o n s t r u c t t h e c r o s s script b y i n s e r t i n g Jewish a p o c a l y p t i c elements—eclipse, torn temple curtain, earthquake, resurrection o f the righteous dead, t e s t i m o n y o f t h e G e n t i l e c e n t u r i o n ( M a r k 1 5 : 3 8 - 3 9 ; M a t t 2 7 : 5 1 - 5 4 ; L u k e 2 3 : 4 4 - 4 5 ) — t h a t b r i n g n e w a n d alien i m p l i c a ­ t i o n s to t h e n o r m a l m e a n i n g o f s u c h a story. B u t t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l s death s c e n e reveals that J o h n preferred a t h i r d strategy, o n e that w o u l d essentially a d m i t t h e p u b l i c events o f t h e c r o s s w h i l e d e n y i n g t h e i r n o r m a l c o m m e m o r a t i v e value. T o a c h i e v e this alternate reading, J o h n p r o d u c e d a narrative that offers a c o u n t e r m e m o r y o f Jesus' d e a t h . The

14

t e r m " c o u n t e r m e m o r y " was c o i n e d b y sociologist M i c h e l

Foucault in a discussion o f Nietzsche's "genealogical" approach to histo­ ry.

15

Nietzsche h a d argued that h i s t o r y b o o k s support t h e c u r r e n t social

order b y c l a i m i n g that certain events a n d individuals are obviously and inherently i m p o r t a n t to life as we k n o w it. B u t since every h i s t o r y b o o k can o n l y r e c o r d a tiny fraction o f t h e total past, what m a k e s a particular incident o r p e r s o n "historical" and worthy o f r e c o r d while others m a y be forgotten o r ignored? Nietzsche answered this question b y proposing a "genealogical" m o d e o f historiography, o n e that would treat all events and cultural institutions as products o f c o m p l e x power relations. F o r example, a genealogical h i s t o r y o f t h e a t o m i c b o m b i n g o f H i r o s h i m a would b e less c o n c e r n e d with t h e specific c i r c u m s t a n c e s and details sur­ r o u n d i n g that event—who built t h e b o m b ; w h o flew t h e plane; where 13. Q11:47-51 might be viewed as an exception, if one views Jesus' citation of "wisdom" (v. 49) as an allusion to his own impending death in the line of the prophets. Even here, however, there is no specific reference to crucifixion, and in fact this pericope would tend to minimize Roman involvement in the death of Jesus by placing responsi­ bility on the shoulders of the Jews. 14. Technically speaking, all early Christian accounts of Jesus' death are countermemories, including Paul's comments on the soteriological meaning of the cross. Hence, a similar argument could be made—and I myself would make such an argument—for the passion stories in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Gospel of Peter. As a countermem­ ory, John's account differs only in terms of degree, inasmuch as his style of presentation is essentially limited to commentary on events that most people in the Roman Empire would accept as true—"true" in the sense that they are immanently logical within the public transcript of crucifixion. 15. Foucault, "Nietzsche."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

150

and at what t i m e t h e b o m b s t r u c k t h e city; h o w m u c h force was released; h o w m a n y people died—than with t h e factors that led the U n i t e d States t o develop a t o m i c weapons, t h e geopolitical motives b e h i n d the deci­ sion to drop t h e b o m b , and t h e reasons why that event h a d such a deep i m p a c t o n global c o n s c i o u s n e s s w h e n it directly i m p a c t e d o n l y a tiny percentage o f t h e h u m a n race. O f course, such a study would n o t e m a n y o f t h e s a m e facts that appear in m o r e conventional a c c o u n t s , but would take a radically different approach to the issue o f why H i r o s h i m a hap­ p e n e d and why this event has subsequently b e e n regarded as "histori­ cally significant." O b s e r v i n g that Nietzsche's approach was radically at o d d s with the W e s t e r n tradition o f historiography, Foucault noted that any genealogi­ cal a c c o u n t would function as a sort o f "countermemory,""a transforma­ 16

tion o f history into a totally different form o f time." F o r purposes o f the present discussion, it is i m p o r t a n t to stress the phrase "a totally different form

o f t i m e " in t h e preceding quotation. W h a t Foucault calls "counter-

m e m o r i e s " are n o t simply different versions o f the past; t h e y are, rather, different ways

o f creating a version o f the past. C o u n t e r m e m o r i e s do

n o t j u s t dispute accepted facts; rather, c o u n t e r m e m o r i e s reconfigure

ac­

cepted facts b y forcing t h e m into a n e w framework that is radically at odds with t h e values o f m a i n s t r e a m society. C o u n t e r m e m o r y narratives arrange t h e c o m m o n pieces o f t h e history puzzle in ways that create new, and often subversive, images o f yesterday. C l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 reveals that the F o u r t h G o s p e l s death story is a " c o u n t e r m e m o r y " in t h e sense described above. Unlike the author o f t h e Gospel of Thomas,

J o h n does not deny or ignore Jesus'

death; unlike Matthew, h e does n o t attempt to dilute t h e events o f the crucifixion b y m i x i n g in unusual apocalyptic signs. Rather, J o h n essen­ tially tells a relatively u n r e m a r k a b l e story o f a Jewish death o n a cross, but reconfigures this public past b y viewing these c o m m o n events through a c o m m e m o r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k that radically changes their meaning. Specifically, John's C a l v a r y a c c o u n t affirms all the basic facts o f a R o m a n crucifixion but completely subverts t h e n o r m a l m e a n i n g o f t h o s e events by reversing the imperial propaganda e m b e d d e d in the cross. To u n p a c k these claims, I will first note ways in w h i c h J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 37 follows t h e n o r m a l logic o f a R o m a n crucifixion, then explore two literary strategies that J o h n uses to subvert the m o r a l o f the cross story. 16. Ibid., 160.

T H A T C H E R — "I Have

Conquered

the

World"

This two-level reading—public history a n d J o h a n n i n e interpretation— will highlight t h e p r i m a r y christological t h e m e s o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l s passion story. A N O T H E R DAY AT CALVARY F o r s o m e two centuries now, biblical scholars have b e e n deeply c o n ­ c e r n e d with t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e historical Jesus. O n e m a j o r aspect o f the debate c o n c e r n s t h e events o f t h e cross. W h i l e t h e majority o f Jesus scholars believe that the N e w T e s t a m e n t Gospels are c o r r e c t to assert that Jesus died b y crucifixion—indeed, it is a l m o s t impossible t o i m a g i n e that early Christians would fabricate such a story—there has b e e n substantial disagreement o n t h e details o f t h e passion narrative. D i d R o m a n soldiers really cast lots for Jesus' garments? W a s Jesus publicly m o c k e d b y t h e c h i e f priests? D i d Pilate affix a placard o n the cross that read " K i n g o f t h e Jews"? A n y specific answer to e a c h o f these questions reflects a larger set o f c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e historical value o f the G o s p e l s (and various n o n - c a n o n i c a l d o c u m e n t s ) as sources for Jesus. W h i l e t h e question o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l s historical reliability lies outside t h e s c o p e o f t h e present essay, I would c o n t e n d that m o s t firstc e n t u r y readers would have h a d little difficulty accepting the s e q u e n c e o f events r e c o r d e d in J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 . Put a n o t h e r way: w h e t h e r o r n o t J o h n s death story m e e t s the strict criteria o f m o d e r n ( i s t i c ) historical research (it generally does n o t ) , m o s t o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s would likely believe that it was "true" in t h e sense that it follows t h e mythological c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative b e h i n d R o m a n crucifixions. In fact, J o h n goes out o f his way to offer logical, indeed obvious, explanations for t h e events o f t h e cross, while at t h e s a m e t i m e ignoring t h e apocalyptic elements o f o t h e r traditional a c c o u n t s that s o m e audiences m i g h t call into ques­ tion. B e c a u s e this is the case, while m o s t

first-century

readers would b e

surprised b y J o h n s interpretation o f the m e a n i n g o f Christ's death, few would reject t h e F o u r t h Gospel's b a s i c database o f events s u r r o u n d i n g t h e cross. John's desire to paint a plausible portrait o f the passion is evident, first, from t h e fact that t h e specific events h e records all fit t h e fable o f R o m a n power. A s n o t e d earlier, every crucifixion rehearsed the physical c o n q u e s t a n d psychological denigration o f subject peoples. Following this script, e a c h o f t h e six distinct scenes in J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 finds an ap­ propriate place in t h e larger m y t h i c a l d r a m a o f Rome's subjugation o f t h e Jews:

151

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

152 Scene

1: Jesus is Crucified

(19:16-18)

J o h n first states the basic fact that Pilate h a n d e d Jesus over to his e x e c u ­ tioners, w h o forced h i m to c a r r y his own cross to the site o f death and then crucified h i m . T h e fact that Jesus must b e a r the i n s t r u m e n t o f his own destruction simply magnifies his helpless c o n d i t i o n and the i m p o s ­ sibility o f effective resistance. Scene 2: The Titulus

(19:19-22)

W h i l e the charge that Pilate posts over Jesus, "King o f the Jews," is ironi­ cally appropriate from J o h n s point o f view, it also reflects the fact that crucifixions functioned n o t only, and not even primarily, to punish victims, but rather to humiliate and intimidate entire groups o f subject people. In fact, the Jews do n o t have a "king" b e c a u s e the R o m a n s will n o t p e r m i t t h e m to have o n e ; if, however, they were allowed to have a king, the R o m a n s c o u l d put that person o n a cross at any t i m e they chose. T h e reader is unsurprised w h e n the local client authorities, the c h i e f priests, ask for a modification to the titulus ( " D o n o t write ' K i n g o f the Jews,' but rather, 'This m a n said, "I a m king o f the Jews""'; 19:21) and also unsurprised w h e n Pilate refuses to grant their request. F r o m a R o m a n point o f view, there is n o reason to deny the obvious m e a n i n g o f what is happening. Scene 3: Casting

Lots

(19:23-24)

The physical subjugation o f the Jews is appropriately symbolized by the fact that Jesus must give even the clothes on his b a c k to R o m a n soldiers, w h o divide his possessions a m o n g themselves as spoils o f c o n q u e s t while the vanquished J e w l o o k s on. Scene 4: Jesus'Mother

(19:25-27)

Jesus' c o n c e r n for his m o t h e r is striking; at the s a m e t i m e , since the R o m a n s are taking his life, he obviously must find s o m e m e a n s to insure h e r well-being. Scene 5: Jesus'Last

Words and Death

(19:28-30)

O n e could readily i m a g i n e that a crucifixion victim would b e thirsty, especially i f h e had previously lost m u c h o f his bodily fluid through scourging, and Jesus' dying word, τ ε τ έ λ ε σ τ α ι ("it is finished"), looks like

T H A T C H E R — "I Have

Conquered

the

World"

a simple a d m i s s i o n o f defeat: his m o v e m e n t , a n d any threat that it m a y have represented t o R o m a n power, are over. Scene 6: The Piercing

(19:31-37)

Jesus' q u i c k death reflects the efficiency o f R o m a n p o w e r a n d protects t h e purity o f t h e Sabbath, while the mutilation o f his c o r p s e (piercing with a spear) strips h i m o f basic h u m a n dignity. Aside from t h e general plausibility o f t h e events h e records—every­ t h i n g t h e R o m a n s d o in J o h n 19 fits their political agenda nicely—the Evangelist, apparently wishing to assuage any possible doubt, offers a m o r e detailed rationale for two o f the six scenes outlined above. First, in s c e n e 3 ( J o h n 1 9 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) , J o h n intervenes to explain exactly w h y the sol­ diers decided t o cast lots for Jesus' clothing. W h i l e M a r k simply notes that t h e R o m a n s stripped Jesus and t h r e w dice ( M a r k 1 5 : 2 4 ) , J o h n expands t h e incident b y n o t i n g that four soldiers were involved a n d that o n e o f Jesus' g a r m e n t s , the χι τ ω ν (a full length u n d e r g a r m e n t ) was seamless a n d therefore c o u l d n o t b e t o r n without substantial damage. Realizing this fact, t h e soldiers discuss t h e situation a n d agree t o cast lots, e a c h pre­ s u m a b l y h o p i n g t o preserve the value o f the g a r m e n t a n d secure it as his o w n ( J o h n 1 9 : 2 4 ) . S e c o n d a n d similarly, in s c e n e 6 ( J o h n 1 9 : 3 1 - 3 7 ) J o h n goes out o f his way t o explain exactly w h y Jesus' legs were not b r o k e n and w h y t h e soldiers stuck a spear into his corpse. B e c a u s e t h e Passover S a b b a t h was about to c o m m e n c e , the Jewish authorities asked Pilate t o r e m o v e t h e b o d i e s quickly so as to prevent t h e m f r o m polluting t h e h o l y city. H o n o r i n g this request, Pilate sent soldiers to b r e a k t h e legs o f t h e victims, thus hastening their deaths (while n o t reducing their agony). Presumably, t h e R o m a n s would have d o n e this t o Jesus as well, but were surprised to discover that h e h a d expired; to ensure that he was dead, o n e o f t h e soldiers drove a spear into his side. In b o t h o f these instances, J o h n offers entirely rational reasons for specific events o n Calvary, rea­ sons that are essentially unsurprising a n d that fit neatly into t h e deep logic o f R o m a n crucifixions. O f course, b o t h the seamless g a r m e n t a n d the "water a n d b l o o d " m a y reflect significant J o h a n n i n e theological t h e m e s — t h e former t h e unity o f Christ's message a n d / o r c o m m u n i t y , the latter t h e reality o f his physical i n c a r n a t i o n — a n d for this reason m a n y scholars have ques­ t i o n e d the historical reliability o f J o h n s presentation. W i t h o u t entering

153

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

154

that debate, I would argue that J o h n s original readers would have b e e n likely to accept the general outline o f the F o u r t h G o s p e l s death story, simply b e c a u s e that story follows t h e underlying logic o f the cross script. Jesus, representative o f the entire Jewish race, has offended the dignity o f R o m e b y threatening to upset p e a c e a n d order. Caesar's physical and psychological p o w e r over t h e "king o f t h e Jews" is graphically illustrated by t h e soldiers' violent destruction o f Jesus b o d y (scourging; crucifix­ ion; thirst) and b y t h e c o m p l e t e dehumanization o f his person (divided clothing; inability to care for m o t h e r ; mutilation o f c o r p s e ) . W h e t h e r o r n o t J o h n s a c c o u n t is historically accurate, it is entirely plausible and, indeed, holds b a c k n o t h i n g that would tend to m a r k Jesus as a helpless pawn in t h e story o f R o m a n power. Obviously, while t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l s death story essentially follows the plot o f t h e m a s t e r c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative b e h i n d every R o m a n crucifixion, J o h n wishes to rewrite t h e m o r a l o f the story. Specifically, J o h n admits the basic s e q u e n c e o f events at Calvary—credible cross stories c a n o n l y b e told so m a n y ways—but reinterprets t h o s e events by offering an explicit c o u n t e r m e m o r y interpretation o f their m e a n i n g . This c o u n t e r m e m o r y is c o m m u n i c a t e d through two literary motifs: t h e t h e m e o f fulfilled

prophecy

and Jesus'powerful

words from

the

cross.

Taken together, these devices create a s e c o n d level o f m e a n i n g within the text o f J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 , a rereading o f history that shows that Jesus' death did n o t quite m e a n what C a e s a r thought it meant.

ACCORDING TO

SCRIPTURE

As is often noted, all four c a n o n i c a l a c c o u n t s o f Jesus'death are built o n the theological p r e m i s e o f 1 C o r 15:3: "Christ died for o u r sins a c c o r d i n g to the Scriptures." W h i l e J o h n is perhaps less explicitly interested in the "for o u r sins" part than, say, M a r k (see M a r k 10:45), his passion play is clearly driven b y the n o t i o n that Jesus died "according to Scripture." Three o f the six scenes in t h e F o u r t h Gospel's death story—the lot-casting, Jesus' final words, and t h e piercing—are explicitly c o n n e c t e d to passages from the O l d T e s t a m e n t with the formula ίνα ή γ ρ α φ ή π λ η ρ ω θ ή / τ ε λ ε ι ω θ ή ("so that the Scripture would b e fulfilled/completed"; J o h n 19:24, 2 8 , 3 6 - 3 7 ) . Yet J o h n 19 differs from 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 15 in o n e k e y respect: while Paul's c o m m e n t simply reveals that the first Christians c o n n e c t e d Christ's death with passages from the Bible, thus incorporating Scripture into the Jesus traditions that t h e y passed o n to s e c o n d generation believ-

T H A T C H E R — " J Have

Conquered

the

World"

ers (1 C o r 1 5 : 1 - 3 ) , in the F o u r t h G o s p e l p r o p h e c y is a causal force

155 y

rative impulse that d e t e r m i n e s what c a n and, in fact, what must

a nar­ happen

o n Calvary. In J o h n s c o u n t e r m e m o r y challenge to the public m e a n i n g o f t h e cross, t h e events o f Jesus' death were p r e d e t e r m i n e d n o t b y the public transcript o f R o m a n crucifixions, b u t rather b y t h e imperative that God's w o r d must b e fulfilled. The causative force o f p r o p h e c y b e c o m e s i m m e d i a t e l y obvious u p o n c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n o f the three scenes in w h i c h J o h n actually al­ ludes to t h e O l d Testament. A s n o t e d above, in each instance t h e nar­ rated events are entirely unsurprising in t h e c o n t e x t o f a crucifixion, and J o h n twice offers logical explanations for the specific situations that h e describes. Yet this logic is i m m e d i a t e l y subverted b y tying t h e passion to a divine p r o g r a m that C a e s a r is unaware o f and c a n n o t control. As a result, o n e m u s t read J o h n 19 at two levels—the level o f t h e R o m a n and Jewish great traditions, a n d the level o f J o h n s c o u n t e r m e m o r y — i n order to get t h e w h o l e story b e h i n d the cross. J o h n first c o n n e c t s Jesus death to Scripture in t h e third o f t h e six s c e n e s in his passion a c c o u n t , the lot-casting ( J o h n 1 9 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) . As n o t e d earlier, witnesses to t h e crucifixion, including t h e attending soldiers themselves, would have explained the lot-casting in t e r m s o f t h e fact that Jesus t u n i c was seamless and c o u l d n o t b e divided ( 1 9 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) . Yet J o h n is n o t particularly c o n c e r n e d with t h e reasons w h y R o m a n s t h i n k t h e y do anything and, n o t trusting t h e reader's Bible knowledge, p r o c e e d s t o state explicitly that the soldiers' a c t i o n s were a fulfillment o f Ps 2 2 : 1 8 . I n fact, J o h n introduces this p r o p h e c y in such a way that t h e soldiers must t h r o w dice for Jesus' clothes, w h e t h e r it would m a k e any sense to do so or not. In G r e e k , t h e citation formula at J o h n 19:24 o p e n s with t h e w o r d ίνα ("so that"), w h i c h is subordinate to t h e m a i n verb o f t h e sentence, εΐ π α ν ("they said"): "So that the Scripture would b e fulfilled [and n o t b e ­ cause a t o r n piece o f u n d e r w e a r would b e w o r t h l e s s ] . . . t h e soldiers said to o n e a n o t h e r . . . " This g r a m m a t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n adds a n e w layer o f m e a n i n g t o t h e soldiers' actions, o n e that subverts t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l logic o f t h e cross: while Jesus' n a k e d n e s s would s e e m to dramatize t h e help­ lessness o f t h e Jews, his e x e c u t i o n e r s are in fact unwitting puppets w h o s e m o u t h s m o v e with God's hand. This impression is strongly reinforced by t h e awkward phrase "this, t h e n , is what the soldiers did" (01 μεν ουν σ τ ρ α τ ι ώ τ α ι τ α ύ τ α ε π ο ί η σ α ν ) i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e Scripture q u o t a ­ tion, w h i c h in this c o n t e x t c a n o n l y m e a n that the R o m a n s are doing j u s t what C h r i s t wants t h e m to do.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Similar language introduces the two texts that J o h n cites at 1 9 : 3 6 - 3 7 in c o n n e c t i o n with the crurifragium

and the piercing o f Jesus' side. H e r e

again, J o h n s explanation o f t h e reason why the thieves' legs were b r o k e n and Jesus' legs were not is completely logical from the perspective o f t h e cross script—there would b e n o n e e d to b r e a k the legs o f a dead m a n , a n d o n e can readily i m a g i n e that Jesus might die quickly after a night o f beatings. Indeed, the m o s t p r o b l e m a t i c feature o f this passage is Pilate's sudden willingness to c o m p l y with Jewish sensitivities after his stubborn posturing during Jesus' trial ( J o h n 1 8 : 2 9 - 3 1 , 3 8 - 3 9 ; 1 9 : 4 - 6 , 1 2 , 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 9 - 2 2 ) . Yet a q u i c k l o o k through the J o h a n n i n e lens reveals that things are n o t quite as t h e y appear, for in fact "these things h a p p e n e d ( έ γ έ ν ε τ ο τ α ύ τ α ) so that the Scripture would b e fulfilled" ( 1 9 : 3 6 ) . T h e R o m a n s did not leave Jesus' legs u n b r o k e n b e c a u s e it m a d e sense to do so, n o r did t h e y stab h i m to verify his death; in reality, t h e y did these things b e c a u s e t h e y had to d o t h e m . I f the citations o f Scripture at J o h n 19:24 and 3 6 - 3 7 add a fatalistic flavor to the story o f Christ's death, the reference to p r o p h e c y at v. 2 8 leads o n e to suspect that the J o h a n n i n e Jesus is working through a list o f "things to do before I die." After c o m m i t t i n g his m o t h e r to the care o f the Beloved Disciple ( 1 9 : 2 5 - 2 7 ) , Jesus suddenly realizes that a certain verse r e m a i n s unfulfilled and says, "I a m thirsty." It stands to reason that any crucifixion v i c t i m would b e thirsty, yet in John's c o u n t e r m e m o r y Christ is n o one's v i c t i m . Lest there b e any doubt, the double repetition o f the verb τέλει oco at J o h n 1 9 : 2 8 - 3 0 clarifies that Jesus is simply finishing a few tasks that must b e d o n e before he c a n go b a c k to the Father. μετά τούτο ε\δώς 6 Ί η σ ο % ότι ήδη πάντα τετέλεσται After these things, Jesus, knowing that everything had been finished already, ϊνα τελειωθή ή γραφή λέγει Δ ι ψ ώ . . . said "I am thirsty" so that the Scripture would be finished... ουν . . Ι η σ ο ύ ς είπε ν τετέλεσται Then . . . Jesus said, "It is finished!' T h e dying word o f the J o h a n n i n e Jesus, τ ε τ έ λ ε σ τ α ι , s e e m s to m e a n that the Scriptures "finish" with the c o m p l e t i o n o f his mission, w h i c h ends with his death o n the cross. B e c a u s e this is the case, Jesus c a n n o t even ask for a d r i n k in the F o u r t h G o s p e l without e n a c t i n g s o m e p r o p h ­ ecy. Certainly, his thirst c a n n o t b e the result o f R o m a n abuse—indeed,

T H A T C H E R — " / Have

Conquered

the

World"

to a d m i t that Jesus was thirsty b e c a u s e o f the scourging and t h e cross would b e to admit that C a e s a r h a d s o m e small power over Christ's a c ­ tions, a n o t i o n that J o h n c a n n o t accept. Q u i t e t h e contrary, while all o t h e r crucifixion v i c t i m s m u s t b e g their killers for water, Jesus drinks w h e n G o d tells h i m to d r i n k a n d dies w h e n h e is ready to die. John's three references t o Scripture, then, create a c o u n t e r m e m o ­ ry o f Jesus' death b y reversing t h e values e n c o d e d in t h e cross script. W h e r e a s crucifixions n o r m a l l y r e - e n a c t e d the story o f R o m a n conquest, every e l e m e n t o f Jesus' death follows a divine p r o g r a m that completely supersedes Caesar's claims. W h i l e this s a m e t h e m e pervades the Synoptic a c c o u n t s o f Jesus' death, J o h n notably underscores it in three ways to achieve m a x i m u m effect. First, while in Mark's a c c o u n t references to Scripture are implicit—Mark's entire death s c e n e is built o n P s a l m 2 2 , yet h e directly cites this text o n l y o n c e , in Jesus' c r y o f a b a n d o n m e n t ( 1 5 : 3 4 ; cf. Ps 2 2 : 1 ) — J o h n drapes O l d Testament texts over his story like a r o b e , in e a c h case explicitly drawing the reader's attention to t h e prophecies that interest h i m . S e c o n d , in two o f t h e three scenes where h e quotes Scripture (the lot-casting a n d t h e piercing), J o h n cites the O l d Testament o n l y after providing a rational reason for t h e soldiers' actions, a m o v e that highlights the R o m a n logic o f crucifixion o n l y in order t o u n d e r m i n e that logic. T h i r d a n d finally, J o h n accentuates t h e t h e m e o f fulfillment at 1 9 : 2 8 b y insisting that Jesus' thirst was a "completion" o f Scripture, yet fails to cite any specific O l d Testament text. W h i l e a n u m ­ ber o f proposals have b e e n offered, it r e m a i n s impossible to d e t e r m i n e exactly what "prophecy" J o h n has in m i n d h e r e .

17

Perhaps J o h n was n o t

referring to any specific passage, but rather to the m o r e general point that Jesus' suffering was p r e d e t e r m i n e d b y God's plan a n d n o t b y Pilate's whims.

THE

LAST W O R D S OF A CONQUERING KING

As n o t e d earlier, t h e F o u r t h Evangelist uses two literary motifs to c o m ­ m u n i c a t e his c o u n t e r m e m o r y reading o f t h e m e a n i n g o f Jesus' death. The first relates to t h e t h e m e o f prophetic fulfillment, w h i c h counters t h e 17. Major proposals include (all quotations NRSV) Ps 22:15, "My mouth is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to my jaws"; Ps 42:2, My soul thirsts for God, for the living God"; Ps 63:1, "My soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you as in a dry and weary land where there is no water"; and Ps 69:3, "I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched." a

157

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

m o r a l o f the cross script b y offering a n e w causal principle for the events o f Calvary: t h e R o m a n s are n o t re-enacting their c o n q u e s t o f Palestine, but are rather puppets in a divine plan that t r a n s c e n d s the interests o f their empire. T h e s e c o n d m o t i f relates to J o h n s presentation o f Jesus' last words. Specifically, t h e crucified Christ does not say what he ought to say in such a situation: instead o f admitting defeat, he dies b y p r o c l a i m i n g victory. At first glance, a review o f the F o u r t h G o s p e l s "words from t h e cross" m i g h t s e e m essentially irrelevant to a discussion o f J o h n and e m ­ pire, simply b e c a u s e the J o h a n n i n e Jesus has very little to say between t h e Pilate trial and his final breath. Jesus speaks in only two o f the six scenes in J o h n s Calvary story, uttering a total o f eleven words. In the G r e e k text, C h r i s t uses n i n e words to c o m m i t his m o t h e r to the care o f t h e B e l o v e d Disciple ( 1 9 : 2 5 - 2 7 ) , two o f which are the definite articles ("the") before the words " m o t h e r " and "son"; he then says δ ι ψ ώ ("I a m thirsty," o n e word in Greek; 19:28) and, after taking a drink, τετέλεστοπ ("It is finished," again o n e word in Greek; 19:30). Statistically speaking, J o h n s a c c o u n t is similar to that o f M a r k , where Jesus speaks o n l y ten words at Calvary, yet falls substantially short o f the eighty-eight words in L u k e s G o s p e l .

18

H e r e again, the F o u r t h G o s p e l s presentation must b e m e a s u r e d in t e r m s o f quality rather than quantity, for closer inspection reveals that J o h n s rendering o f Jesus last words completely reverses the public m e a n ­ ing o f crucifixion b y allowing Christ to speak from a posture o f absolute authority even while hanging o n a R o m a n cross. This strategy is evident b o t h from the larger context

o f the words from the cross—i.e., h o w these

c o m m e n t s c o n n e c t to Jesus' prior statements about his i m p e n d i n g death in the F o u r t h G o s p e l — a n d from the specific content

o f Christ's remarks

in J o h n 1 9 : 2 6 - 3 0 . First, in t e r m s o f narrative

context,

the J o h a n n i n e Jesus does not

n e e d to say as m u c h as his Lukan counterpart simply b e c a u s e he has al­ ready said everything that needs to b e said long before he gets to Calvary. Specifically here, Christ has already i n f o r m e d a n u m b e r o f Caesar's agents that his death will release a divine power that transcends the claims o f every earthly empire. Thus, Jesus has already told the Pharisees that "no o n e takes m y life from m e , but rather I m y s e l f give it. I have authority t o 18. This number includes Jesus' comments to the crowds on the way to Calvary, which are attested only in Luke (Luke 23:26-31).

T H A T C H E R — 7 Have

Conquered

the

World"

give it, and I have authority t o take it b a c k a g a i n ' ( J o h n 1 0 : 1 8 ) . Similarly, Jesus h a s i n f o r m e d t h e governor o f Judea, i n a remarkably casual t o n e , that R o m e has n o authority over h i m save what his o w n Father has given ( 1 9 : 1 1 ) . Further, Jesus has already a n n o u n c e d i n a very public venue (the temple courts, immediately after arresting t h e attention o f J e r u s a l e m t h r o u g h t h e "triumphal entry"; 1 2 : 1 2 - 1 9 ) that "the ruler o f this world"— a m o n i k e r that t h e Passover crowd a n d a n y first-century reader would r e c o g n i z e as a n appropriate title for the emperor—will b e "cast out" (εκ— βληθήσεται εξω) w h e n Jesus h i m s e l f is "lifted up," a J o h a n n i n e euphe­ m i s m for Christ's violent death ( 1 2 : 3 1 - 3 3 ; cf. 3 : 1 4 - 1 5 ; 8 : 2 8 ) . T h e s a m e insolent spirit pervades Jesus' private assurance t o t h e disciples that t h e war is over b e c a u s e "I have c o n q u e r e d t h e world" ( 1 6 : 3 3 ) , a remarkable c l a i m that apparently refers t o h i s resolve t o g o t o t h e cross. Against t h e b a c k d r o p o f these a n d similar statements, every word from t h e m o u t h o f t h e crucified C h r i s t simply confirms his earlier assertions that a n e w a n d true k i n g has invaded Caesar's d o m a i n . S e c o n d , i n t e r m s o f content,

Jesus' words from t h e cross are i m b u e d

with t h e s a m e t o n e o f absolute authority that h a s characterized his dis­ c o u r s e t h r o u g h o u t t h e F o u r t h Gospel. W h i l e his c o m m e n t s t o M a r y and the B e l o v e d Disciple at J o h n 1 9 : 2 5 - 2 7 are, as n o t e d earlier, essentially u n r e m a r k a b l e — " B e h o l d your son; b e h o l d your m o t h e r " — t h e c i r c u m ­ stances m a k e t h e m striking. Even after a long night o f scourging a n d several harrowing hearings, Jesus, h a n g i n g o n t h e cross, still possesses the p r e s e n c e o f m i n d t o provide for his mother's welfare. This fact is all t h e m o r e significant if, as is often suggested, M a r y a n d t h e B e l o v e d Disciple are representative figures, symbolizing ideal discipleship o r t h e J o h a n n i n e C h u r c h e s : true believers should n o t b e afraid t o "stand b y t h e cross" b e c a u s e Jesus is able t o provide for t h e m even i n his weakest moments. T h e c o n t e n t o f Jesus' s e c o n d statement, "I a m thirsty" ( J o h n 1 9 : 2 8 ) , is s o unsurprising i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a crucifixion that o n e wonders w h y t h e Evangelist would even m e n t i o n it. J o h n , however, reveals that these are n o t m e r e l y the words o f a dying m a n w h o s e b o d y has lost m o s t o f its fluid, but rather reflect Jesus' awareness that h i s death is t h e final a c t i n a divine d r a m a . Notably, J o h n does n o t use a f o r m o f t h e w o r d πληρόω to describe Jesus' "fulfillment" o f m e s s i a n i c p r o p h e c y here, b u t rather t h e verb τελειόω (Ίνα τελειωθή ή γραφή), w h i c h stresses t h e t h e m e o f "completion." I n s o m e sense, Jesus' words o n t h e cross are "finishing"

159

ι6ο

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

what t h e sacred Scriptures o f Judaism started, a supersessionist c l a i m that inherently challenges the j u d g m e n t o f the religious authorities w h o d e m a n d e d his e x e c u t i o n . Finally, a n d m o s t significantly, J o h n , like Luke, replaces the i n c o ­ herent death s c r e a m o f M a r k a n d M a t t h e w ( M a r k 15:37; M a t t 2 7 : 5 0 ) with a specific statement. L u k e s citation o f Ps 3 1 : 5 , "I [Jesus] entrust m y spirit to your h a n d s " (Luke 2 3 : 4 6 ) , reflects a confident assurance that C h r i s t will b e vindicated b y his heavenly Father b e c a u s e h e is i n n o c e n t o f any w r o n g d o i n g . T h e J o h a n n i n e Jesus goes b e y o n d self-defense by p r o c l a i m i n g , " I t is finished" ( τ ε τ έ λ ε σ τ α ι ; 1 9 : 3 0 ) . H e r e again, any R o m a n reader c o u l d readily accept that Jesus m i g h t have said such a thing as h e felt his life e b b i n g away, but in J o h n s c o u n t e r m e m o r y presentation "it is finished" m e a n s n o t h i n g like " f m d o n e for," as evident from the aside at 1 9 : 2 8 that h e " k n e w that all was c o m p l e t e d ( ε ί δ ώ ^

πάντα

τ ε τ έ λ ε σ τ α ι ) . " T h e w o r d "all" here m a y m e a n that Jesus has fulfilled all the relevant m e s s i a n i c prophecies, o r that he has c o m p l e t e d all the tasks o f his revelatory mission. M o s t likely, J o h n has b o t h o p t i o n s in view: Jesus has finished his o w n w o r k by finishing the O l d T e s t a m e n t p r o p h e ­ cies. In any case, Jesus' dying words in the F o u r t h G o s p e l stress that the realities o f the c r o s s — t h e b o o k m a r k in Caesar's p o w e r story—in n o way c o m p r o m i s e Christ's ability to achieve his objectives.

THE T W O STORIES V i e w e d as a response to R o m e , the F o u r t h Gospel's crucifixion a c c o u n t m a y b e viewed not o n l y as a "countermemory," but also a n d m o r e specifi­ cally as what J a m e s C. Scott calls a "profanation" o f imperial values. In m a n y instances, oppressed people (like the F o u r t h Evangelist) publicly affirm the status q u o in order to survive, while privately participating in u n d e r g r o u n d behaviors a n d discussions that create "an alternative m o r a l universe" that reflects their true sentiments. Such expressions are "profane" in the sense that t h e y c o n s c i o u s l y parody and reverse official religious a n d political v a l u e s .

19

Following this m o d e l , John's passion

story profanes the c o m m e m o r a t i v e narrative b e h i n d R o m a n crucifixion b y reversing the plot in a way that m a k e s Caesar and his agents helpless v i c t i m s o f the Christ w h o c o n q u e r e d the world.

19. Scott, "Protest and Profanation," 17,20,29.

T H A T C H E R — "I Have

Conquered

the

World"

Story 1: Public Meaning (Cross Script)

Story 2: Profanation (John's Countermemory)

Scene 1 (John 19:16-18) Jesus carries his cross through town and is crucified.

The Jewish nation, represent­ ed by Jesus, is symbolically conquered and subjugated by Rome.

Jesus is "lifted up" so that he may "cast out the ruler of this world" and grant eternal life to those who believe in him (John 3:14-15; 12:31-33).

Scene 2 (John 19:19-22) Pilate posts a placard on Jesus' cross that identifies him as "king of the Jews" in three languages.

The Jewish "king" and his subjects are publicly humili­ ated; the Jewish authorities are powerless to defend their own dignity. Of course, the Romans don't allow the Jews to have a "king," but if they did they could give that in­ dividual the same treatment they are now giving Jesus.

Pilate is ironically correct to observe that Jesus is a "king" although Jesus'kingdom is in fact "not of this world," instead deriving its mandate from the deity who permits the Romans to rule for the time being (John 18:36-37; 19:10-11).

Scene 3 (John 19:23-24) The Roman sol­ diers divide Jesus' clothing and cast lots for his seam­ less tunic.

Roman soldiers reenact Pompey's conquest of Palestine in 63 BCE and, from the perspective of John's late-first-century CE readers, the reconquest and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, dividing the plunder while the helpless Jews look on.

While the Romans may think that they are casting lots for practical reasons, they are in fact unwitting pawns in' Christ's divine drama, fulfill­ ing Ps 22:18.

Scene 4 (John 19:25-27) Jesus commits his mother to the care of the Beloved Disciple.

Like so many Jewish widows, Jesus' mother is thrown on the mercy of others after her insolent son suffers the just reward for rebellion.

Even after being scourged and crucified, Jesus is completely capable of providingfor the needs of those who are not ashamed of his cross (cf. John 18:1-9).

Scene 5 (John 19:28-30) Jesus dies after saying "1 am thirsty" and "It is finished."

The vanquished Jew admits defeat.

Jesus returns to the Father after "completing" both the Old Testament Scriptures and his revelatory mission (see John 13:1-3; 16:28)

Event

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Event Scene 6 (John 19:31-37) The soldiers confirm Jesus' death by piercing his side with a spear, producing a flow of water and blood.

Story 1: Public Meaning (Cross Script)

Story 2: Profanation (Johns Countermemory)

The corpse of the Jewish "king" is mutilated, symbol­ izing the erasure of the most basic human dignities.

Even after Jesus'death, the Romans can do nothing to him that does not fulfill some prophecy. Thus, they do not break his legs because Scripture says they cannot, and they pierce his side because Scripture says they must

Moral: The Jews are a help­ less, subject people; rebellion will lead to annihilation once again.

Moral: Caesar's agents serve Christ's agenda at every step, proof positive that he has conquered the world.

As the table above indicates, J o h n 1 9 : 1 6 - 3 7 tells two stories, o n e that recites t h e creed o f the cult o f imperial power and a s e c o n d that profanes and reappropriates C a e s a r s claims. W h i l e the events o f public history reenact the d r a m a o f R o m a n conquest, in J o h n s c o u n t e r m e m o r y C a e s a r falls before a c o n q u e r i n g C h r i s t w h o s e agenda is irresistible a n d w h o s e k i n g d o m t r a n s c e n d s every earthly empire. J o h n s t h e o l o g y o f the cross e m e r g e s from the space b e t w e e n these public and private readings, a history that any e m p e r o r c o u l d accept m a r r i e d to a confession that R o m e c a n n o t withstand.

T H A T C H E R — "I Have

Conquered

the

World"

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament:' CBQ 40 (1978) 498-507. Foucault, Michael. "Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History." In Language, Countermemory, Practice, translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Edited by Donald F. Bouchard, 139-64. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Kirk, Alan. "The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q." In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, 191-206. SBLSS. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. . "Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition." Theory and Society 4 (1977) 1-38. Zerubavel, Yael. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

6

Paul Confronts Caesar with the Good News

S T A N L E Y E . PORTER

I know no art, and I only view A stone from a wall, But I am thinking that stone has echoed The voice of Paul. 1

INTRODUCTION

O

NE OF T H E MOST i m p o r t a n t recent transformations in the study o f Paul has b e e n from Paul the Jewish religious t e a c h e r into Paul

the world-citizen within the R o m a n Empire. There had, o f course, b e e n previous study—in fact, m u c h previous s t u d y — o f Paul within the context o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , and consequently discussion o f Paul in relation to such things as his citizenship, his traveling e n h a n c e d by the benefits o f t h e pax Romana,

his m i s s i o n a r y strategy in t e r m s o f m a j o r

G r e c o - R o m a n cities, and his n u m e r o u s confrontations with and even 2

i m p r i s o n m e n t s at the hands o f various R o m a n officials. T h e transfor­ m a t i o n that has recently o c c u r r e d is to see Paul not merely as a figure within the R o m a n E m p i r e but as a figure w h o constructively interacts with the R o m a n E m p i r e in n u m e r o u s ways related to it as an empire, that 3

is, in t e r m s o f its political, social, and e c o n o m i c structures. T h e results 1. Hardy, "In the British Museum." 2. These issues are usually handled within standard introductions to Paul. A good place to start is Bruce, Paul. 3. One of those who has led in this recent effort is Richard A. Horsley. See his two

164

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

o f such study are b e g i n n i n g to b e c o m e m o r e widely k n o w n within t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f Pauline studies. E x a m p l e s include Neil E l l i o t t s teasing out the political implications o f e x a m i n i n g P a u l s so-called conversion as 4

an act o f defiance against R o m e , o r n u m e r o u s re-assessments o f P a u l s 5

theological a n d practical t e a c h i n g regarding political issues, o r N o r m a n Petersen's reassessment o f P a u l s supposed social c o n s e r v a t i s m in his ap­ 6

p r o a c h to slavery, o r T o m W r i g h t s recognition o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the a s c e n d a n t e m p e r o r cult as a fitting b a c k d r o p for c o m p o s i t i o n o f a 7

n u m b e r o f b o o k s o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t , o r Stanley Stowers s idea that R o m a n s is addressed to t h e R o m a n s in order to get their a c c e p t a n c e o f 8

P a u l s gospel within an Augustan c o n t e x t . These are just s o m e o f the m a n y t h e o r i e s b e i n g advocated recently in t e r m s o f Paul a n d the R o m a n E m p i r e . W h a t I wish to pursue in this paper regarding Paul a n d e m p i r e is t h e relationship o f three o f P a u l s m a j o r l e t t e r s — R o m a n s , and 1 a n d 2 C o r i n t h i a n s — i n relationship to R o m a n imperialism, especially as this revolves a r o u n d t h e e m p e r o r cult. The R o m a n e m p e r o r cult arose out o f two m a j o r tendencies, a n d several m i n o r o n e s . O n e was the all-too-typical h u m a n t e n d e n c y to want t o apotheosize h u m a n s o f significant abilities, position, o r merit. T h e r e is a l o n g h i s t o r y o f h u m a n s doing this, including divinizing an­ cient rulers, m i l i t a r y figures, philosophers, and others. Several o f the 9

best k n o w n are H e r c u l e s , w h o was w e l c o m e d into the p a n t h e o n o f the gods after his death, a n d t h e Egyptian P h a r a o h s .

10

The second tendency

that t h e R o m a n s directly responded to was the divinization o f earlier rulers, especially in the east. Taylor has argued that the Persians divin­ ized their rulers.

11

A l t h o u g h n o t all scholars have followed h e r in this,

it is widely r e c o g n i z e d that such worship b e c a m e widespread f r o m t h e edited volumes: Paul and Empire and Paul and Politics. 4. Elliott, Liberating Paul 149-67. 5. E.g. Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity', Gorman, Apostle, 12, who notes that "There could be nothing more irrational or more un-Roman than to honor— not to mention deify!—a man crucified by the imperial authorities." 6. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul. 7. Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 140-41. 8. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 21 -33. 9. On the apotheosis of Heracles/Hercules, see Graves, Greek Myths, 2:200-206. 10. See Ringgren and Strom, Religions of Mankind, 41-54, esp. 50, where it is noted that the Pharaoh was seen as divine from earliest times, and the son of the god Re. 11. Taylor, Divinity, 247-55.

ι66

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

t i m e o f A l e x a n d e r the Great and his successive Hellenistic rulers o f the east, which was transferred to the R o m a n emperors, at first after their deaths a n d then increasingly during their own lifetime. A l e x a n d e r the Great, as ruler in the T e m e n i d line o f kings o f M a c e d o n i a , was seen as descended from Zeus, but u n d e r t o o k a lifetime process o f having his divinity recognized in the course o f his conquest o f the eastern w o r l d .

12

O n e o f his legacies was that the D i a d o c h i and their successor Hellenistic kings retained this divinization as a m e a n s o f retaining social c o n t r o l .

13

F o r example, P t o l e m a i c kings were recognized a s ' god and savior" ( I B M 4 . 9 0 6 ) , and the R o s e t t a stone recognizes P t o l e m y V as "being g o d from god and goddess" (OGIS

9 0 ) . Similarly, the Seleucid kings applied to

themselves t h e t e r m "god," as is seen o n their c o i n s .

14

H e n c e there was

an e n v i r o n m e n t in which the deification o f leaders was already to b e found. As a result, Augustus could have his adopted father, Julius Caesar, divinized, and could b e recognized in such a way in the eastern part o f t h e empire, without a threat o f this impinging upon his position within the early p r i n c i p a t e .

15

However, during the first c e n t u r y the e m p e r o r cult

grew m u c h stronger, until it had b e c o m e fully e n t r e n c h e d b y the e n d o f the c e n t u r y .

16

This recognition o f the exalted status o f the e m p e r o r was

reflected in n u m e r o u s inscriptions, papyrus d o c u m e n t s , coins, art and architecture, and the like, as t h e y recognized and paid tribute to the ruler as divinized. O n e o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t pieces o f ancient evidence that has b e e n brought into discussion o f the N e w Testament and empire, especially in relation to the e m p e r o r cult, is the bilingual calendar inscription from

12. For discussion of Alexander and his deification (some say confirmation came at Ammon in Egypt but others later in Bactria), see (among others) Wilcken, Alexander the Great, 211-13; Tarn, Alexander the Great, 2:347-74; Fox, Alexander the Great', Hammond, Alexander the Great, but who notes that never outside of Egypt was Alexander seen as an incarnate god (p. 121); Green, Alexander of Macedon, who notes that Philip himself was on a similar quest (p. 81). 13. On the divinization of the Hellenistic kings, see Bevan, House of Seleucus 2:154-57, on Antiochus IV; Taylor, Divinity, 1-34; Green, From Alexander to Actium, 396-408. 14. See Deissmann, Light, 344-45, esp. η. 1. 15. On Augustus, see Nilsson, Imperial Rome, 11-19; Jones, Augustus, 150-52. 16. On the emperor cult, see Taylor, Divinity, 142-246; Ferguson, Religions, 88-98; Price, Rituals and Power; Davies, Romes Religious History, 176-85. On the visual artistic evidence, see Strong, Apotheosis and After Life.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

17

Asia M i n o r (OGIS 4 5 8 for the standard G r e e k e d i t i o n ) . Portions o f this inscription in G r e e k a n d Latin have b e e n found at P r i e n e (the largest fragments), A p a m e a K i b o t o s , D o r y l a i o n , M a i o n i a , a n d E u m e n e i a . This inscription was erected at various places in Asia M i n o r in celebration o f Augustus's b i r t h d a y in 9 B C .

1 8

This inscription has, rightly, b e e n b r o u g h t

into discussion o f t h e Gospels, especially M a r k s G o s p e l .

19

As will b e

n o t e d below, there are a n u m b e r o f features o f t h e calendar inscrip­ tion that M a r k s G o s p e l holds in c o m m o n to indicate that t h e G o s p e l was written in direct confrontation o f the imperial c u l t .

20

S o m u c h has

b e c o m e increasingly well-recognized in recent times. T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f this inscription for studying P a u l s letters in relation t o the R o m a n E m p i r e has o n l y b e e n t o u c h e d u p o n , but merits further c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

21

However, there are n u m e r o u s o t h e r d o c u m e n t s from t h e ancient world that also provide partial glimpses o f t h e k i n d o f thought-world that was given t o increasing r e c o g n i t i o n and veneration o f e m p e r o r s in the i m p e ­ rial cult. In this paper, I wish t o draw u p o n the conceptual b a c k g r o u n d reflected b y these inscriptions t o shed light o n these three Pauline let­ ters. B y doing this, I focus u p o n o n e particular aspect o f the relation­ ship o f P a u l s letters to t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , while ignoring and passing by a n u m b e r o f o t h e r features. S o m e o f the o t h e r features that would m e r i t lengthier discussion in a n o t h e r c o n t e x t would b e t h e implied a n d explicit social relations a m o n g t h o s e invoked in t h e letters a n d P a u l s critique o f t h e m , o t h e r theological a n d philosophical c o n s t r u c t s invoked in t h e letters, a n d P a u l s social, political, a n d religious standing in rela17. This inscription is mistakenly referred to as the Priene inscription, after the place where the largest fragments were discovered, but the inscription is usually stud­ ied as a composite from several locations. This inscription can be found in its Greek and Latin forms in Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, no. 98, with some portions not included in OGIS 458, and the Latin portions CIG 3.3957 = CIL 3.12240; CIG 3.3902b; CIL 3.13651 in Laffi, "Iscrizione." Complete translations (note the importance of this below) are found in Sherk, ed., Rome and the Greek East, no. 101, with notes on recon­ struction; Danker, Benefactor. Photographs of lines 30 and onward are conveniently found in Deissmann, Light,figs.70,71. Most translations only provide a portion of the document, usually from lines 30 following. 18. This date is not certain, but is the one that most scholars use. 19. For example, a small portion is quoted in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary, 169. 20. As recognized by Evans,"Marks Incipit"; cf. Evans, Mark, lxxxiii-iv. 21. E.g.,Wright,"Pauls Gospel."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

168

tion to his audience, a m o n g others. D i m e n s i o n s o f s o m e o f these ideas will inevitably b e t o u c h e d o n in this paper as I discuss t h e relationship o f Paul to t h e imperial cult, but these are o n l y incidental as t h e y help t o inform m y m a j o r t h e m e .

PAUL'S L E T T E R T O T H E R O M A N S W e believe that we live in an age o f narrative as an explanation o f o u r relation to the world a r o u n d us. N e w Testament studies have b e c o m e a part o f this narrative propensity, especially in relation t o the O l d Testament.

22

However, narratives have i n f o r m e d cultures from earliest

t i m e s — n o t just N e w T e s t a m e n t scholarship o f a sort over the last twenty years—as is seen in the fundamental stories that cultures tell themselves about their b e i n g and existence. Such was the ancient world itself. In Paul's letter to the R o m a n s , I believe that we see a fundamental conflict b e t w e e n two highly operative narratives. O n e o f t h o s e narratives is that o f the imperial cult itself, especially as seen in such a d o c u m e n t as t h e calendar inscription o f 9 B C . This was, for the R o m a n s , a n e w narrative, b e i n g told in its fullest and perhaps first form about Augustus. A n o t h e r narrative is the o n e that Paul c o n s t r u c t e d regarding Jesus in his letter t o the R o m a n s . This narrative t o o was a n e w o n e , w h i c h attempted to capture and then tell the story o f w h o Jesus was in relation t o t h e R o m a n world o f the times. Tlie points o f c o m p a r i s o n and conflict b e a r further exploration. The calendar inscription o f 9 B C has rarely—if ever—been studied in regard to its narrative v a l u e .

23

T h e usual m e a n s o f studying it in rela­

tion to the N e w Testament is t o n o t e lexical similarities b e t w e e n a given biblical passage and the inscription. These lexical c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s are important, as we shall see, but there is m o r e to the inscription than s i m ­ ply the c h o i c e and use o f these v o c a b u l a r y items. T h e inscription weaves a narrative regarding Augustus that is worth e x a m i n i n g in m o r e detail. R a t h e r than simply e x a m i n i n g a small portion o f the inscription—

22. Some of the recent works that approach the New Testament from the narra­ tive perspective are Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ; Witherington, Pauls Narrative Thought World; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God; Riesner, Pauls Early Period; Keesmaat, Paul and His Story; Grieb, Story of Romans. 23. This paper is an exercise in narratology (among other things). For essential works on narratology, see Bal, Narratology; Bal, On Story-Telling; O'Neill, Fictions of Discourse; Stanzel, Theory of Narrative; Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

w h i c h is usually d o n e w h e n the inscription is e x a m i n e d with the N e w T e s t a m e n t in m i n d — I wish to e x a m i n e the entire inscription at least in its G r e e k p o r t i o n , as r e c o n s t r u c t e d b y scholarship. The inscription is divided into seven portions. T h r e e o f these are in Latin. T h e Latin p o r t i o n s were found at A p a m e a K o b o t o s a n d D o r y l a i o n , but these are fragmentary a n d apparently o f s e c o n d a r y value in relation to t h e G r e e k p o r t i o n s , and so will n o t b e considered further here. T h e inscription appears t o have b e e n k n o w n in G r e e k in Priene, A p a m e a K o b o t o s , M a i o n i a , a n d E u m e n e i a , with t h e presumption b e i n g that es­ 24

sentially the s a m e inscription was found at e a c h . W h a t is extant s e e m s to b e in three portions. T h e first p o r t i o n is the edict o f the p r o c o n s u l o f Asia, a n d t h e s e c o n d a n d third p o r t i o n s are the two decrees o f the K o i n o n o f Asia. O n l y t h e first o f these two decrees is sufficiently extant to utilize in r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the full effect o f t h e decree alongside t h e edict o f t h e governor. The edict o f t h e p r o c o n s u l o f Asia is damaged, a n d so t h e very b e ­ g i n n i n g is n o longer extant, although o n the basis o f t h e inscriptional tradition it is highly likely that t h e inscription b e g a n with t h e p r o c o n ­ sul identifying h i m s e l f a n d a n n o u n c i n g his t a s k .

25

T h e edict follows a

particular pattern. T h e inscription recognizes the significance o f t h e o c c a s i o n — t h e b i r t h d a y o f the divine C a e s a r ( I V . 4 - 5 ) — a n d places this event within t h e f r a m e w o r k o f the natural order, such that the b i r t h o f C a e s a r has m a i n t a i n e d a n d restored natural order ( I V . 6 - 8 ) . T h e inscrip­ tion t h e n progresses t h r o u g h a series o f significant references, first to t h e natural b i r t h o f C a e s a r ( I V . 9 - 1 0 ) a n d t h e n his fortunate a n d fortuitous life that was beneficial to all (IV. 1 0 - 1 4 ) . T h e inscription t h e n invokes h o w all o f this o c c u r r e d a c c o r d i n g to a preordained divine will that has provided for s u c h b e n e f a c t i o n (IV. 15). This first section o f the inscrip­ tion t h e n lists t h e particular festal worship events that are to take place in c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f C a e s a r s birthday. The first decree o f the K o i n o n is intact a n d b e g i n s with standard language regarding a decree ("It has b e e n decreed . . . " ) . This decree fol­ lows a similar pattern to t h e edict in t e r m s o f its reference to Augustus. The decree itself first recognizes t h e role o f Providence in providing Augustus t o h u m a n i t y ( V I . 3 3 - 3 4 ) . T h e n there is reference to producing 24. That is the way that the fragments have been used in scholarship, with portions only available at one site used to fill in gaps in the inscription at others. 25. See Danker, Benefactor, 216.

170

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Augustus to t h e benefit o f h u m a n k i n d , labeling h i m as a savior w h o e x ­ ceeded the h o p e s o f all previous benefactors ( V I . 3 5 - 3 8 ) . T h e s a m e kinds o f significant references are then m a d e as in t h e edict, including citation o f the b e g i n n i n g o f g o o d news o c c u r r i n g with his birthday ( V I . 4 0 - 4 1 ) , and then the fact that he had bestowed benefits u p o n various people, including local rulers ( V I . 4 5 - 4 6 ) . T h e inscription invokes these benefits within the larger framework o f t h e m c o m i n g directly from t h e right h a n d o f the divine Augustus ( V I . 4 5 - 4 6 ) . T h e decree then c o n t i n u e s with reference to the various specifics o f the calendrical celebrations in h o n o r o f Augustus's birthday. There are several features o f t h e inscription to note. O n e is the c o m m o n pattern used to present what is said regarding Augustus, before turning to the particulars o f h o w it is that he is to b e h o n o r e d t h r o u g h the celebration o f his birthday. I will return t o this pattern below. A s e c o n d feature is that this particular inscription is n o t a singular instance, but itself representative o f the s a m e inscription that was erected in at least five places in Asia—that is, in five places where fragments o f the inscription have b e e n found and recovered. These are n o t the o n l y inscriptions o f this particular nature, however. F o r example, there was an inscription found at Halicarnassus o n the west coat o f Asia that was at first thought to b e a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f the s a m e inscription, b e c a u s e o f t h e similarity in the language u s e d .

26

W h e n it was first discovered,

the r e s e m b l a n c e to the decree found at A p a m e a K i b o t o s and E u m e n i a regarding h o n o r i n g the birthday o f Augustus was c o m m e n t e d upon. This inscription describes Augustus in t e r m s o f father Z e u s and savior o f the universal race o f h u m a n s ( I B M 4 . 8 9 4 ) .

2 7

S i n c e t h e n , further in­

scriptions have b e e n found with s o m e w h a t similar preambles as the o n e noted above, such as at Assos. However, the Halicarnassus inscription, t h o u g h it does n o t appear to refer to the s a m e events c o m m e m o r a t e d b y the calendrical inscription o f 9 B C , in c o n j u n c t i o n with o t h e r inscrip­ tions indicates that praise o f the e m p e r o r was widespread and generally celebrated throughout Asia. This is understandable in t h e light o f the fact that u n d e r Augustus the pax Romana

extended into the East, including

the interior o f Asia, and brought with it relative p e a c e and orderliness.

28

26. Hirschfeld and Marshall, Collection, 64-65. 27. See also Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, no. 98a. 28. Hirschfeld and Marshall, Collection, 64-65. On the pax Romana, see Petit, Pax Romanw, Wengst, Pax Romana.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

171

A t h i r d feature t o n o t e is that the edict o f the calendrical i n s c r i p ­ t i o n was instigated b y a g o v e r n o r n a m e d Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s , w h o is referred to in V I . 4 a n d V I I . 8 0 b y n a m e . I n IV.30, h e states that h e issued his edict in b o t h languages, G r e e k a n d Latin. Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s was t h e g o v e r n o r o f Asia, probably in 1 0 / 9 B C .

2 9

A n o t e w o r t h y feature o f

Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s is that h e gained m o r e widespread r e c o g n i t i o n o n a c c o u n t o f his e r e c t i n g t h e calendrical inscription, a n d as a result was given divine h o n o r s at his death b y b e i n g r e c o g n i z e d at A l e x a n d r i a Troas as b e i n g associated with Apollo S m i n t h e u s .

30

A fourth feature is t h e fact that there were n u m e r o u s similar in­ scriptions venerating t h e e m p e r o r s , starting with Julius C a e s a r a n d c o n ­ tinuing t h r o u g h his successors until N e r o .

31

D e i s s m a n n notes that there

was an inscription e r e c t e d during t h e t i m e o f Augustus in the city o f Tarsus, w h i c h read: " E m p e r o r Caesar, son o f G o d , Augustus, the Tarsian people [honor]." As D e i s s m a n n states, "Perhaps t h e y o u n g Paul m a y have seen here t h e expression S o n o f G o d for the first t i m e — l o n g before it c a m e to h i m with a n o t h e r m e a n i n g . "

32

However, such similar expres­

sions o f v e n e r a t i o n o f the e m p e r o r were found t h r o u g h o u t t h e empire, from t h e t i m e o f Julius C a e s a r o n . I t h i n k that it is virtually certain that t h e y h a d an i m p a c t u p o n Paul. I will n o t e s o m e o f t h o s e inscriptions in areas that Paul visited.

33

Julius C a e s a r was widely heralded as savior,

b e n e f a c t o r (IG V I I . 1 8 3 5 ; CIA 3 . 4 2 8 ; Inschriften

von Olympia

3 6 5 ; IG

X I I . 5 . 5 5 6 ) , a n d even g o d ( I G X I I 5 . 5 5 7 ) in G r e e c e . In Asia, the language is similar, a n d p e r h a p s even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . H e was described as g o d at L e s b o s (Ath. Mitt. 13 [ 1 8 8 8 ] 6 1 ) , as b e n e f a c t o r at C h i o s (IGR 4 . 9 2 9 ) , a n d as savior a n d b e n e f a c t o r (IGR 4 . 5 7 ) , creator (IG X I I 2 . 1 6 5 b ) a n d also g o d (IG X I I 2 . 3 5 b ; IGR 4 . 3 3 ) at Mytilene. At P e r g a m u m , h e was depicted as savior (IGR 4 . 3 0 4 ) , b e n e f a c t o r (IGR 4 . 3 0 7 ) , and savior and b e n e f a c t o r 29. See Sherk, Rome and the Greek East, 127, nn. 2,5. 30. Taylor, Divinity, 273. 31. I note only those who would have lived roughly contemporaneously with Paul (apart from Julius Caesar). 32. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 167 η. 1, citing W. H. Waddington, Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure, ΙΙΙ.2 (Paris: Didot, 1870), no. 1476 (p. 348). 33. This means that I am not going to cite inscriptions or papyri from Egypt, where they are in abundance, or Africa, Spain, etc. I cite these inscriptions according to stan­ dard abbreviations, and from the following sources: Taylor, Divinity, 267-83; Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents; Charlesworth, Documents; Smallwood, Documents; Danker, Benefactor. Cf. Evans, Mark, lxvii-lxviii, who cites mostly papyri from Egypt.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

172

(IGR 4 . 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 , 3 0 6 ) . T h e r e was an inscription at Ephesus erected b y the cities o f Asia to h o n o r C a e s a r as "manifest god" a n d " c o m m o n savior o f 3

h u m a n life" ( S / G 7 6 0 ) . Evidence o f divinization o f Augustus is even m o r e extending t h r o u g h o u t the e m p i r e .

34

widespread,

O n Crete at Lyttus, Augustus was

depicted as god (IGR 1.1007). In A t h e n s , there was an inscription o n the Acropolis in a shrine to the goddess R o m a and the savior Augustus (CIA 3.63; see also CIA 3 . 3 4 ) and to Augustus as creator (CIA 3 . 3 0 ) . There were also inscriptions to Augustus as savior in O l y m p i a (Inschriften Olympia

3 6 6 ) , savior and god in O l y m p i a (Inschriften

von Olympia

von 53),

savior and benefactor in Thespiae (IG V I I 1 8 3 6 ) , savior a n d creator in 3

Pontus (IGR 4 . 3 1 4 ) , god and b e n e f a c t o r in Hypata (SIG

7 7 8 ) , g o d in

M e l o s ( / G X I I 3 . 1 1 0 4 ) , and "son o f god" in Nicopolis (CIG 1 8 1 0 ) , T h e r a (IG X I I 3 . 4 6 9 ) ,

35

and Sardes (Sardis

7.1 no. 8 ) . In Galatia, an inscription

was erected b y the league o f the Galatian cities to b o t h t h e g o d Augustus and the goddess R o m a (OGIS

5 3 3 ) , and in Neapolis there was an inscrip­

tion that contains the oath to b e taken b y o n e at this altar to Augustus, in which Augustus is listed along with all o f the o t h e r gods and goddesses to which o n e is to swear allegiance (IGR 3 . 1 3 7 ) . In Pisidia, Augustus was hailed as savior and b e n e f a c t o r (IGR 3 . 4 2 6 ) , in T l o s in Lycia as god, cre­ ator, and savior (IGR 3 . 5 4 6 ) , and in M y r i a in Lycia as "god Augustus, son o f god, Caesar, e m p e r o r o f the earth and sea, benefactor a n d savior o f the entire world" (IGR 3 . 7 1 9 ) . Augustus was called god along with Pos ei don and Aphrodite at Cilicia (IGR 3 . 9 2 1 ) , and god o n Cyprus (IGR 3 . 9 3 2 , 9 7 3 , 9 9 4 ; CIG 2 6 2 9 ) . In Mytilene, there was a temple to Augustus with a decree h o n o r i n g h i m , a n d copies o f this decree were to b e placed also in P e r g a m u m , A c t i u m , B r u n d i s i u m , Tarraco, Maissilia, along with other places (see IGR 4 . 3 9 ) . In n u m e r o u s M y t i l e n e inscriptions, Augustus was heralded as g o d ( I G R 4 . 3 8 , 4 2 , 5 9 , 6 0 , 6 3 , 6 4 , 6 8 , 1 1 4 ; IG X I I 2 . 1 6 8 ) , as well as Zeus (IGR 4 . 9 5 ) . In Ilium, h e was called "emperor Caesar, son o f god, god Augustus," b e n e f a c t o r a n d savior (IGR 4 . 2 0 1 ) . In P e r g a m u m , Augustus was called god (IGR 4 . 3 0 9 , 3 1 5 , 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 ) , god, benefactor, and creator (IGR 4 . 3 1 1 ) , and "son o f god" and "god Augustus"

(Inschriften

34. There is also evidence of divinization of Augustus's family members, such as his son Gaius. See, e.g., CIA 3.444; SIG 1065; IG II.3.3250. 3

2

35. According to Taylor (Divinity, 271), Wilamowitz-Mollendorf made the sug­ gestion that the use of the Greek article in the genitive singular, του (tou), may have indicated divinity.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts von Pergamon

Caesar

with the Good

News

173

3 8 1 ) . O t h e r references t o Augustus as g o d are found at

S a m o s (IGR 4 . 9 7 5 , 9 7 7 ) , M y r i n a C a e s a r e a (IGR 4 . 1 1 7 3 ) , C y m e

(IGR

4 . 1 3 0 2 ) , H i e r o c a e s a r e a (IGR 4 . 1 3 0 4 ) , S m y r n a (IGR 4 . 1 4 4 4 ) , a n d A n c y r a (OGIS

5 3 3 ) , a n d in b o t h G r e e k a n d Latin prologues to the Res

Gestae

Divi AugustU p o r t i o n s o f w h i c h have b e e n found at A n c y r a in Galatia, Pisidian A n t i o c h , a n d A p o l l o n i a in Pisidia (IGR 3 . 1 5 9 for t h e texts from A n c y r a a n d Pisidia). T h e evidence, especially t h r o u g h o u t Asia M i n o r , for t h e deification o f Augustus would have b e e n h a r d to avoid, especially as it was found in m o s t u r b a n centers o f the area. T i b e r i u s was r e c o g n i z e d as a b e n e f a c t o r at P e r g a m u m (IGR 4 . 3 2 0 , but before t h e death o f Augustus), son o f the g o d Augustus at G y t h e i o n in L a c o n i a (SEG 1 1 . 9 2 2 ) , a n d g o d and the son o f t h e god Augustus at Lapethus in Cyprus (OGIS

5 8 3 ) a n d M y r a in Lycia (IGR 3 . 7 2 1 ) . Gaius

Caligula was r e c o g n i z e d in A t h e n s as the n e w Ares (CIA 3 . 4 4 4 ) a n d s o n o f Ares (CIA 3 . 4 4 4 a ) . H e was said to b e son o f the god Augustus a n d a n e w g o d at Halasarna (IGR 4 . 1 0 9 4 ) , a n d was recognized as a god at M y t i l e n e (IGR

4.67).

Claudius was called son o f t h e n e w Zeus at A h a t (MAMA

6.250), and

savior a n d b e n e f a c t o r at b o t h Aezani in Phrygia (IGR 4 . 5 8 4 ) a n d At hens (IG I I / I I I 2 3 2 7 4 ) . I n a lengthy inscription from A c r a e p h i a in B o e o t i a , N e r o was repeatedly called " L o r d Nero," t h e o n e with foreknowledge, a n d savior, Z e u s t h e savior, a n d Z e u s the liberator, and "Lord Augustus" 3

(SIG

8 1 4 ) . N e r o was also called son o f t h e god Claudius at R h o d e s (SylP

8 1 0 ) , t h e son o f the greatest o f gods (IM 1 5 7 b ) , and the y o u n g Apollo 2

(IG I I / I I I 3 2 7 8 ) . I n two unusual inscriptions, N e r o was called the "good g o d Asclepius C a e s a r " (IGR 4 . 1 0 5 3 )

3 6

a n d the n e w Apollo in A t h e n s (IG

2

II/III 3278). M y c o n t e n t i o n is that Paul was very familiar with the widespread use o f t e r m s that divinized t h e Caesars w h e n h e wrote his letter to t h e R o m a n s . This is not, so far as I know, a particularly contentious statement to m a k e . H e o n l y h a d to have his eyes o p e n as h e traveled t h r o u g h o u t a n d repeatedly within Asia M i n o r .

37

P a u l s travels t o o k h i m to a variety

36. See Deissmann, Light, 345 n. 4 for discussion. 37. This raises the question of general literacy, and in particular Pauls literacy. On Pauls education, see Porter and Pitts, "Pauls Bible," where it is argued in the light of recent research that Paul received a grammatical education in Tarsus before going to Jerusalem for his rabbinical training. The article also makes the point that most people in the Greco-Roman world were subjected to a literate culture, and needed to have access to writing, even if they were not literate.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

174

o f places within t h e G r e c o - R o m a n world where such inscriptions were erected. I have m e r e l y n o t e d t h e places above that were in the a m b i t o f P a u l s travels. T h e s e places included primarily G r e e c e and Asia M i n o r . These inscriptions preserve ample r e c o r d o f language o f divinization as part o f t h e e m p e r o r cult, presented in public form for all to see. O n e o f t h e features o f inscriptions—as o p p o s e d to papyri (although t h e papyrological evidence is widespread as well)—is that these d o c u m e n t s were written as p e r m a n e n t representations o f edicts, decrees, a n d the like. In the light o f this widespread evidence, I wish to go further a n d suggest the possibility that Paul h a d in fact seen m a n y such inscriptions, and m a y have even seen, o r at least k n e w o f the k i n d o f material c o n t a i n e d within, the calendar inscription found at P r i e n e and o t h e r sites. In t h e c o u r s e o f his travels Paul had b e e n close b y o r possibly even passed t h r o u g h several o f the sites that h a d a form o f t h e calendar inscription. T h e s e places include D o r y l a e u m , w h i c h m a y have b e e n visited o n his way from Pisidian A n t i o c h to Troas o n the s e c o n d m i s s i o n a r y j o u r n e y , P r i e n e , which was located close to Ephesus (and n o t t o o far f r o m M i l e t u s ) a n d c o u l d have b e e n visited o n his s e c o n d j o u r n e y o r during his lengthy stay in Ephesus o n his third m i s s i o n a r y j o u r n e y , o r A p a m e a K o b o t o s , w h i c h was in P h r y g i a n e a r L a o d i c e a a n d C o l o s s a e and could have b e e n passed through o n his third m i s s i o n a r y j o u r n e y . A n y o n e o r m o r e o f these cit­ ies could have b e e n visited before Paul wrote his letter to t h e R o m a n s , probably after visiting C o r i n t h o n his third m i s s i o n a r y j o u r n e y .

38

Even

i f h e did not actually visit these places, Paul was within the vicinity, and, along with the o t h e r evidence o f widespread reference to the e m p e r o r as a form o f god, would have n o doubt taken n o t i c e o f such language. However, I believe that there is a stronger influence than simply i n c i d e n ­ tal references to the divinization o f the emperor—Paul s e e m s to k n o w o f the narrative that is found in the calendrical inscription. In the light o f his having the n a m e Paul, as did the o n e w h o c o m m i s s i o n e d and erected the calendar inscription and the last p r o c o n s u l to b e h i m s e l f given di­ vine h o n o r s , I believe that there is even a possibility that Paul is styling h i m s e l f as the n e w e r e c t o r o f a n e w inscription to t h e true Lord, Jesus Christ. The Pauline letter form takes a fairly standard pattern. W h e t h e r o n e sees this as consisting o f three, four, o r five parts, all agree that there is 38. For discussion of the date of composition, see McDonald and Porter, Early Christianity, 451, where a date around AD 56 or 57 is suggested as reasonable.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

175

t h e Pauline letter opening. W i t h i n this letter opening, there are s o m e variations that c a n a n d do take place. F o r example, Paul expands t h e s e c t i o n o n t h e addressee in 2 C o r 1:2.

39

I n the o p e n i n g to his letter to

t h e R o m a n s , Paul does s o m e t h i n g that h e does n o t do in any o t h e r letter that h e writes. H e crafts the m o s t extensive introduction o f t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e o p e n i n g that specifies t h e sender. His playing o n the similarity o f his n a m e with t h e s p o n s o r o f the calendar inscription, his patterning o f what h e says in t h e o p e n i n g , a n d his address o f the letter to t h e R o m a n s all p o i n t toward Paul consciously writing a letter to the R o m a n s that confronts t h e m with t h e nature o f w h o the true "Lord" is. The o p e n i n g o f t h e letter t o t h e R o m a n s , I believe, follows a s i m i l a r narrative p a t t e r n t o t h e o n e f o u n d in t h e c a l e n d r i c a l i n s c r i p t i o n . T h i s c o u l d b e m e r e l y c o i n c i d e n t a l , b u t t h e pattern itself helps t o explain s o m e o f t h e features o f t h e letter o p e n i n g in ways that o t h e r e x p l a n a ­ t i o n s d o not.

Prescript The letter is written b y "Paul, slave o f C h r i s t Jesus, called a p o s t l e ,

40

des­

ignated for t h e g o o d news o f God." T h e prescript with Paul listed first is typical o f t h e Pauline letter form a n d is found elsewhere in his letters.

41

Similarly, t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e letter b y t h e proconsul, Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s , b e g i n s with his n a m e at the outset as well, as o n e would e x p e c t in t h e letter form, even i f it is i n s c r i b e d o n stone. Like any R o m a n o f t h e t i m e , Paul would have h a d three n a m e s : a cognomen

b y w h i c h h e was addressed (Paul), a praenomen

and a

nomen

y

b o t h o f w h i c h are u n k n o w n to us. W e do k n o w that h e h a d an alterna­ tive n a m e o r supernomen, a cognomen*

Saul. T h e n a m e Paul was a c o m m o n o n e as

a n d h a d the sense o f "small," w h e t h e r used pejoratively in

t e r m s o f size o r as a t e r m o f affection.

42

Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s h a d a

39. On the Pauline letter form, see McDonald and Porter, Early Christianity, 380-86, esp. 380-82; and Porter and Adams, eds., Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. 40. Some have questioned whether a single or double attribute is noted here: "called apostle" or "called" and "apostle." See Jewett, Romans, 101. 41. Romans is one of only five letters where Paul has no co-sender, the others being Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. 42. See Hemer,"Name," esp. 183, who notes that many cognomina were pejorative, although the widespread use of the feminine form (Paulina) indicates use of the name Paul as a term of endearment.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

n a m e that had a superficial r e s e m b l a n c e to P a u l s n a m e , although Paulus was the p r o c o n s u l s "obsolete rare praenomen revived as an archaizing fashion."

43

. . . whi ch was occas i onal l y

Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s had a n a m e

that also indicated b e i n g from the tribe o f Fabius {nomen),

a well-known

tribe with m e m b e r s such as the o r a t o r M . Fabius Quintilianusis, and a cognomen

o f M a x i m u s , m e a n i n g "great" o r "large" (equivalent to the

G r e e k μέγας* o r μ ά κ ρ ο ς ) .

44

I c a n n o t help but think, w h e t h e r Paul was writing with c o n s c i o u s reference to Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s o r not, that he was playing o n his own n a m e whenever he wrote his letters, and especially in his letter to the R o m a n s . Paul b e g i n s his letter b y essentially stating: "Little Paul, slave o f Christ Jesus . . . " B y contrast, i f h e has his eye o n Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s , he is positioning h i m s e l f in relation to the great o r large Paul from the Fabian t r i b e .

45

T h e ( s o o n to b e seen to b e i r o n i c ) contrast o f position is

further supported by P a u l s use o f passive words to describe himself. H e is n o t only a slave o f Christ Jesus, but h e is "called" b y another, a "sent o n e " (apostle) sent b y another, and "one set apart" by another, for the p u r p o s e o f the g o o d news o f G o d . Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s , b y contrast, is actively "ordering" the erection o f the decree and "ordering" the edict to b e written u p o n it. F r o m the start, Paul s e e m s to have captured the apparent power differential b e t w e e n the p r o c o n s u l o f the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t and the servant o f G o d . Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s fashioned h i m s e l f as a great m a n w h o was doing a noble and w o r th y deed in erecting the calendri­ cal inscription t h r o u g h o u t Asia in c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f the birthday o f C a e s a r Augustus. S o his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s also styled h i m , o n the basis o f his receiving divine h o n o r s . Paul, o n the o t h e r h a n d , fashions h i m s e l f not

43. Ibid. 44. The fact that the transition from Pauls Jewish supernomen to his Roman cogno­ men occurs in Acts 13:9 has raised the question of the relation of Paul's name to that of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus (13:7). Like some of the time, Sergius Paulus is addressed by nomen and cognomen (his full name may have been Quintus Sergius Paulus [see Bruce, Acts, 297], but no Roman is addressed by all three names in the New Testament [Hemer,"Name," 182]). It has been suggested that Paul's name was given to him after his first convert, but this is unlikely, as Paul would have had his Roman name from birth. See Conzelmann, Acts, 100. 45. Some may question whether Paul was up to such "humor." Note that Paul uses a number of literary figures in his letters, including Romans, such as personification, apostrophe, hyperbole, and litotes, among others.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

±77

as great a n d mighty, but as a slave, o n e w h o was called, sent, and deter­ m i n e d o n t h e basis o f another—his G o d — t o b r i n g t h e "good news."

Fulfilled

Order

The s e c o n d m a j o r feature o f t h e calendrical inscription letter a n d de­ cree was h o w t h e birthday o f t h e divine C a e s a r was a joyful and blessed event o n t h e basis o f its c o m i n g about as part o f t h e natural order. T h e letter from Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s describes the birthday as, i f n o t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f nature, t h e b e g i n n i n g o f all things in t e r m s o f usefulness, by his restoring that w h i c h was disordered. T h e decree itself speaks o f providence sending a savior for h u m a n i t y w h o has set everything in or­ der. Paul recognizes a similar k i n d o f setting o f the natural order right, o r fulfillment o f t h e divine order, in t h e way h e heralds the c o m i n g o f t h e "good news." T h e t e r m "good news," also rendered in translations o f t h e calendrical inscription as "glad tidings," is n o t used in the inscription until later in t h e decree itself ( r e c o n s t r u c t e d in line 3 7 a n d partial in line 4 0 ) . In t h e inscription, t h e "good news" c o n c e r n s the birthday o f Augustus. For Paul, t h e "good news" that G o d proclaims is the c o m i n g o f Jesus Christ. Paul styles h i m s e l f as o n e set apart for G o d s g o o d news. This g o o d news, h e says, consists o f three m a j o r elements. O n e is that it was p r o m i s e d beforehand, t h e s e c o n d is that it was given t h r o u g h prophets, a n d t h e third was that it was c o n t a i n e d in the holy writings o r Scriptures. P a u l s approach t o t h e g o o d news is to t r u m p t h e assertion o f Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s in t h e calendrical inscription. T h e inscription reveals a tension b e t w e e n wanting to attribute all that is g o o d t o t h e c o m i n g o f Augustus, while n o doubt also recognizing that Augustus was n o t t h e first o f t h e great rulers a n d leaders. T h u s Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s casts t h e r e c o g n i t i o n in t e r m s o f restoring t h e natural order. His c o m i n g was a fulfillment, but was also a necessity in the light o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

46

Paul

goes further a n d places t h e c o m i n g o f Christ Jesus within t h e c o n t e x t o f n o t j u s t having b e e n anticipated o r hinted at b y G o d , but having b e e n p r o m i s e d b e f o r e h a n d b y G o d . G o d s p r o m i s e was n o t merely s o m e t h i n g revealed in t h e present c i r c u m s t a n c e s — a s is hinted at in the calendrical inscription—but was, Paul says, m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h G o d s own p r o p h 46. It has been noted by a number of commentators that ruler cults were less of a theological structure than they were a pragmatic approach to society. See Wilcken, Alexander the Great, 212-13; Taylor, Divinity, 35,237,238.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ets and c o n t a i n e d in t h e holy writings o r Scriptures (that is, t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ) . Paul is clear elsewhere in R o m a n s that o n e o f the advan­ tages o f the Jewish people was that t h e y had b e e n given t h e divine words o f G o d (see R o m 3 : 2 ) . H e r e Paul invokes these words from the outset o f his letter to provide p r o c l a i m e d and written p r o o f that the c o m i n g o f Jesus C h r i s t as the "good n e w s " was n o t m e r e l y a circumstantial and coincidental r e c o g n i t i o n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y exigency, but a foretold and c o n f i r m e d event that had b e e n heralded in advance, a n d was c o n t a i n e d within personal first-hand a n d written d o c u m e n t a t i o n .

Natural

Birth

O n e o f the m a j o r features o f the calendrical inscription is that it was erected to clarify a n d regulate the R o m a n calendar o n the basis o f the birthdate o f Augustus (thus c o r r e c t i n g the Julian c a l e n d a r ) . H e n c e , the physical birth o f Augustus is an i m p o r t a n t feature o f t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n b y Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s and the edict itself. Several t i m e s t h e birthday o f the god, Augustus, is m e n t i o n e d in the two m a j o r panels. In the edict o f the proconsul, he states that t h e world would in fact have b e e n a very different place in b o t h a p p e a r a n c e a n d result i f Augustus h a d not b e e n b o r n . T h e edict itself states that t h e p r o d u c i n g o f Augustus was the cul­ m i n a t i o n o f life o n earth. References to the earthly life o f Jesus Christ have often b e e n dis­ 47

cussed with regard to P a u l s letters. A n u m b e r o f scholars have c l a i m e d that P a u l s knowledge o f the earthly life o f Jesus was nearly non-existent, b e c a u s e he does not refer to a n u m b e r o f events, teachings, o r o t h e r features that they believe Paul should have cited i f h e had had such knowledge. M o r e particularly, t h e reference in R o m 1:3 to Christ Jesus b e i n g begotten from the seed o f David a c c o r d i n g to t h e flesh has struck scholars as unusual, in regard to b o t h t h e perceived general lack o f refer­ ences to Jesus' earthly life in P a u l s letters and what is perceived to b e 48

unusual wording in this v e r s e . This is n o t the place to discuss in lengthy detail h o w m u c h Paul k n e w about t h e life o f Jesus. A few simple facts can b e laid out, however. O n e is that, whereas Paul m i g h t n o t cite the words o f Jesus as frequently as o n e m i g h t have h o p e d o r even expected, he does in fact have knowledge o f b o t h specific words o f Jesus and, m u c h 47. Much of this discussion stems from R. Bultmann and his influential dismissive interpretation of 2 Cor 5:16. See his Theology of the New Testament, 1:238-39. 48. E.g., see Dunn, Romans, 1.11-12.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

m o r e importantly, m a j o r teaching events within Jesus' life. Paul k n o w s , for e x a m p l e , that Jesus was h u m a n ( R o m 9 : 5 ) , was b o r n o f a w o m a n ( G a l 4 : 4 ) , h a d b r o t h e r s (1 C o r 9:5; G a l 1:19), ate t h e night h e was betrayed (1 C o r 1 1 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) , testified before Pilate (1 T i m 6 : 1 3 ) , was crucified a n d died o n a c r o s s (Phil 2:8 a m o n g m a n y ) , was b u r i e d (1 C o r 15:4), was raised f r o m t h e dead (1 C o r 15:4 a n d o t h e r s ) , a n d was seen b y Peter a n d others (1 C o r 1 5 : 5 - 7 ) , a m o n g o t h e r statements. Paul also s e e m s t o k n o w o f m a n y o f Jesus' significant t e a c h i n g passages, including state­ m e n t s found in t h e S e r m o n o n the M o u n t (see R o m 1 2 : 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 8 - 1 9 ) , Jesus' t e a c h i n g o n t h e Lord's supper (1 C o r 1 1 : 2 3 - 2 5 ) , Jesus teaching o n divorce (1 C o r 7 : 1 0 ) , a n d Jesus' beliefs about his return (1 Thess 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 49

a n d e l s e w h e r e ) . I n fact, I t h i n k that it is w o r t h n o t i n g that we k n o w far m o r e f r o m Paul's letters a b o u t t h e earthly life o f Jesus t h a n we c a n gather from many, i f n o t m o s t , o f t h e inscriptions regarding Augustus, certainly from what we k n o w from t h e calendrical i n s c r i p t i o n .

50

S e e n within t h e

c o n t e x t o f c o m p a r i s o n with t h e calendrical inscription, Paul's reference here to Jesus' b e i n g in t h e line o f D a v i d m a k e s g o o d sense. Even i f o n e were t o c o n c e d e that Paul does n o t s p e a k a b o u t t h e earthly life o f Jesus as m u c h as o n e w o u l d like, it is understandable that Paul would invoke the k n o w l e d g e that h e did have i f h e were self-consciously imitating ( o r even m i m i c k i n g ) t h e calendrical inscription o r similar d o c u m e n t s . This would also a c c o u n t for w h y what is said here is unusual for Paul. In o n l y o n e o t h e r place does Paul refer t o Jesus as b e i n g in t h e line o f David (2 T i m 2 : 8 ) . Paul is clearly c o n c e r n e d here in the o p e n i n g o f R o m a n s to let his readers k n o w that t h e "good news" that h e is speaking o f is found in a figure w h o is certainly a h u m a n being, even t h o u g h god's s o n ( o n this designation, see b e l o w ) . M o r e particularly, h e is a h u m a n b e i n g w h o has a specific lineage. Just as O c t a v i a n h a d b e e n adopted b y Julius Caesar, so Jesus is depicted as from t h e seed o f David in so far as his fleshly o r h u m a n side was c o n c e r n e d .

49. See Porter and Bedard, Unmasking the Pagan Christy 122-24. 50. Here is the place to mention the importance of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti for our knowledge of Augustus. Even so, we must keep in mind that this relatively short document covers a reign of forty years, often speaks in generalities, and overlooks a number of details, and in fact was written and commissioned for erection by the fea­ turedfigureAugustus himself, at the end of his life when he was 75 years old. A conve­ nient edition with translation is by Shipley in the Loeb Classical Library.

179

ι8ο

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Good

Fortune

T h e n e x t stage in t h e narrative is to attribute g o o d fortune to the e m ­ p e r o r s earthly life. T h e edict o f t h e g o v e r n o r Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s said that people c o n s i d e r e d the c o m i n g o f Augustus as the b e g i n n i n g o f life and o f living. H e says that, in t e r m s o f b o t h private and public life, everyone was better off, especially t h o s e living in Asia, o n a c c o u n t o f Augustus. T h e decree itself similarly states that Augustus had e x c e e d e d everyone's h o p e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s through his benefaction to h u m a n ­ ity, w h i c h far e x c e e d e d anything previously received, and would n o t b e e x c e e d e d in the future. T h e calendrical inscription m a k e s it clear that the g o o d fortune that has fallen o n all o f h u m a n i t y b e c a u s e o f t h e divine Augustus is o n a c c o u n t o f all o f t h e g o o d things that h e has d o n e .

51

In

o t h e r words, it is in what h e d o e s that h e proves his divine character. A person w h o is able to right t h e social order, t u r n c h a o s to regulation, and provide b e n e f i c e n c e to others is d e e m e d to b e o n e w o r t h y o f praise. Paul turns this formulation o n its head b y specifying what it is that distinguishes Jesus C h r i s t as t h e "good news" for humanity. P a u l s state­ m e n t indicates that G o d designated C h r i s t Jesus as t h e son o f G o d in power o n the basis o f the spirit o f holiness as evidenced in the resurrec­ tion from the dead, and that as a result Jesus Christ is o u r Lord. This o n e statement is full o f language that confronts and contradicts the imperial cult b y appropriating the very language used o f the deified Caesars for Jesus Christ. Paul states that deification is b a s e d o n m o r e than simply t h e fact that the C a e s a r was the biggest b e n e f a c t o r o r t h e m o s t pow­ erful general o r the right person on the s c e n e to restore social order. Paul lays out a n u m b e r o f factors that identify Jesus Christ as the ruler w h o t r u m p s Caesar. First, h e states that Jesus Christ was designated in a particular way. T h e calendrical inscription at the outset m e n t i o n s the goodwill o f t h e gods, but does n o t actually state in particular t e r m s the criteria b y which o n e is designated as divine (apart from simply b e i n g C a e s a r ) . T h e word that Paul uses, ο ρ ι σ θ έ ν τ ο ς (horisthentos)

y

is o n e that

indicates a formal c i r c u m s c r i p t i o n and designation, and this designation was the result o f an act b y another, in this case, G o d . S e c o n d , Paul states that Jesus C h r i s t was designated "son o f God." This language, as we have seen above, was very c o m m o n in t h e imperial 51. Augustus's ability to bring peace and restore order to the world was also com­ mended in his own statue, with representations on his breastplate. See Mackay, Ancient Rome, fig. 15.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

cult language o f t h e first century, f r o m Augustus to Nero, a n d is used b y Paul twice o f Jesus C h r i s t in j u s t these few o p e n i n g verses o f R o m a n s . The calendrical inscription itself does n o t explicitly state that Augustus was "son o f god," b u t it d o e s state that it c o m m e m o r a t e s t h e "birthday o f t h e g o d " (lines 4 0 - 4 1 ) . Third, Paul goes further a n d states that Jesus Christ was designated s o n o f G o d "with/in power." T h e calendrical inscription emphasizes that Augustus is c o m m e n d e d for what h e has d o n e , especially b y restoring social order and establishing p e a c e in t h e empire. B y stating that Jesus C h r i s t is designated s o n o f G o d "with/in power," Paul s e e m s to b e indi­ cating that the title b e i n g given to Jesus C h r i s t is n o t simply an honorific in r e c o g n i t i o n o f a position o r even a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s , b u t a designation with force a n d substance to it, even an indication that carries t h e asser­ t i o n o f an essential character. F o u r t h , Paul indicates that there is an essential character to this designation w h e n h e says that it c a m e about o n the basis o f the spirit o f holiness. T h e r e has b e e n m u c h debate w h e t h e r this is an unusual (that is, u n i q u e ) t e r m for t h e H o l y Spirit, a c i r c u m l o c u t i o n for the H o l y Spirit, or s o m e o t h e r spirit, such as Jesus' spirit.

52

H e r e is n o t t h e place t o expli­

cate proto-trinitarian beliefs in t h e N e w Testament, but o n e o f the subt h e m e s o f this o p e n i n g o f R o m a n s is t h e interplay b e t w e e n the figures that later t h e o l o g y would designate as t h e Trinity: G o d , Jesus Christ, a n d 53

the H o l y S p i r i t . W h i l e Paul does n o t go into detail to parse the nature o f t h e Trinity, h e r e a n d elsewhere h e recognizes a differentiated function o f m e m b e r s o f t h e godhead, including here the w o r k o f t h e spirit o f holi­ ness in e m p o w e r i n g t h e designated son o f G o d . Fifth, Paul states that this was related to the resurrection from t h e dead. T h e function o f t h e preposition έκ (ek) in this passage has b e e n widely debated. T h e r e are t h o s e w h o would say that t h e resurrection was t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h Jesus' divinity was established, while others would n o t take έκ as causal but as temporal, indicating t h e t i m e f r o m w h i c h it was r e c o g n i z e d that h e was "son o f G o d . "

54

In the light o f t h e c o n t e x t

here in R o m a n s a n d in c o n j u n c t i o n with what I see as possible c o n s c i o u s 52. See Moo, Romans, 49-50. 53. I emphasize this in my forthcoming commentary, Romans. My use of the term proto-trinitarian (see Porter, "Hermeneutics," 122 n. 59) has been picked up by Fee, Pauline Christology, 63. 54. See Cranfield, Romans, 1:62.

181

182

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

reflection o f t h e calendrical inscription, I believe that the resurrection o f the dead is seen as the t i m e from w h i c h the powerful designation as "son o f G o d " was clearly manifested. Paul has previously n o t e d that the g o o d news c o n c e r n i n g Jesus C h r i s t had already b e e n designated t h r o u g h the prophets and in the O l d Testament, c o n c e r n i n g G o d s son as o n e w h o c a m e t h r o u g h t h e seed o f David. This is a fitting parallel to t h e calendri­ cal inscriptions celebration o f t h e birthday o f Caesar. T h e calendar in­ scription is not celebrating the b i r t h d a y o f Augustus as the date at w h i c h everyone recognized h i m as divine, but is n o w acknowledging h i m as divine (when h e was already 5 0 years old) from the b e g i n n i n g since he is n o w fully r e c o g n i z e d as such t h r o u g h his actions. Sixth, Paul appositionally explicates Jesus Christ as "our Lord." T h e t e r m "lord" was also o n e that h a d a h i s t o r y o f b e i n g used o f divine fig­ ures. This language is found in s o m e o f the imperial cult language, but is also used in the Septuagint as the m o s t frequent word used to translate t h e n a m e for G o d in H e b r e w .

55

T h e use o f the full n a m e o f Jesus Christ

and describing h i m as "our L o r d " serves several purposes in this context. R e c e n t scholarship has wanted to see the designation Jesus Christ as simply P a u l s n a m e for the figure o f Jesus. However, I t h i n k that Paul still uses two n a m e s a n d their ordering to indicate a perspective o n J e s u s .

56

W h e n C h r i s t appears before Jesus, as it does in R o m 1:1, the divine char­ acter is often seen to b e emphasized—Paul is contrasting his status as slave with the exalted Christ. H e r e in v. 4 , Paul follows his m o r e usual order, but also the order that h e has used in presenting Jesus—from the line o f David and designated son o f G o d . H e recapitulates this in the title that would indicate divinity to b o t h J e w and Gentile: "Lord."

Divine

Benefit

The next stage in the narrative o f divine assertion is to n o t e the b e n ­ efits that c o m e about t h r o u g h divine beneficence. In the edict regarding Augustus, Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s states that this was the result o f the divine will and c a n n o t b e repaid b y h u m a n beings, sentiments e c h o e d by the edict itself. T h e calendrical inscription places these benefits in t e r m s o f material prosperity, including such things as an orderly society.

55. See Kramer, Christ, 156. 56. On some of the related issues, see Kramer, Christ, passim.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

Paul, however, sees t h e divine benefit in t e r m s o f what we receive t h r o u g h t h e L o r d Jesus Christ. H e states that "we" receive grace a n d apostleship. W h e r e a s t h e calendrical inscription speaks o n l y o f a tan­ gible a n d secularized benefit o f divinization, Paul transforms the b e n ­ efit a c c r u e d from divine status into that o f b o t h spiritual a n d material spheres. T h e first is that we are to receive grace. Paul does n o t state here in t h e letter what this grace m e a n s , but in s o m e ways it m a y well b e at least t h e early C h r i s t i a n correlate o f t h e k i n d o f secular prosperity a n d order that Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s speaks o f w h e n h e notes t h e kinds o f b e n e f a c t i o n s that have resulted from Augustus.

57

Paul states that t h e

greatest b e n e f a c t i o n o f h u m a n i t y is t h e graciousness o f G o d . T h e s e c o n d feature is that o f a v o c a t i o n a l calling. Again, this is stated in parallel with t h e calendrical inscription. T h e inscription speaks o f t h e kinds o f social benefits gained b y t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e birthday o f the divine Caesar. Paul speaks o f a social benefit with reference to a specific calling. Just as Paul h i m s e l f characterized h i m s e l f as a called apostle, that is, o n e sent out b y G o d at his divine c o m m a n d , so Paul recognizes the general call to apostleship, t h o s e w h o are sent out u n d e r G o d s calling, as t h e c o m m o n benefit o f t h o s e w h o follow t h e L o r d Jesus Christ.

Worship

and

Obedience

The m a j o r narrative pattern o f t h e calendrical inscription ends with words o f worship a n d o b e d i e n c e . Paulus Fabius M a x i m u s speaks o f t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e significance o f the birthday o f Augustus as a type o f "religious o b s e r v a n c e " that will have general benefit to all in its b e i n g recognized. Similarly, t h e decree itself calls for p r o c l a m a t i o n s a n d fes­ tivals that r e c o g n i z e this special date. All o f these are placed within the c o n t e x t o f t h e widespread recognition t h r o u g h o u t Asia o f t h e i m p o r ­ t a n c e o f these celebrations. As o n e m i g h t imagine, Paul transforms the k i n d o f o b e d i e n c e that is e x p e c t e d into what h e calls "obedience o f faith in all t h e nations for t h e n a m e " o f Jesus Christ. This is not, as in the calendrical inscription, an o c c a s i o n for social m e r r y - m a k i n g , even i f it c o m m e m o r a t e s better t i m e - k e e p i n g a n d better social order. F o r Paul, we have received in order to fulfill a worshipful o b e d i e n c e that extends b e y o n d festive o c c a s i o n s to faith itself. Paul is calling for o b e d i e n c e that results in faith. T h e faith that

57. On grace as a benefit of benefaction, see deSilva, Honor, 121-56.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

h e is speaking o f here is n o t entirely clear. It m a y b e the faith o f those w h o are o b e d i e n t , or, a s s u m i n g that t h o s e w h o are o b e d i e n t already have faith as d e m o n s t r a t e d b y their o b e d i e n c e , it m a y b e the faith o f t h o s e to w h o m "we" are apostles. W h e r e a s the calendrical inscription was promulgated widely with physical e x a m p l e s erected in a n u m b e r o f places within Asia, Paul t r a n s c e n d s regional b o u n d a r i e s b y calling for o b e d i e n c e that calls for faith in all the n a t i o n s o r groups o f people. Paul recognizes that his R o m a n a u d i e n c e is already a m o n g t h o s e w h o are the o n e s w h o have b e e n called b y Jesus C h r i s t (the m o t i f o f J e w and G r e e k b e i n g included in G o d s call to faith is found t h r o u g h o u t R o m a n s ; see 1:16). W h a t Paul has said in t h e letter o p e n i n g is, essentially, that there is "good news" from G o d to b e e x p e r i e n c e d . However, this g o o d news does n o t focus u p o n o r originate with Augustus—or any o t h e r e m p e r o r for that matter—but with the c o m i n g o f Jesus Christ into the world. Just as the various edicts a n d inscriptions have a n n o u n c e d celebratory days regarding various e m p e r o r s , including Augustus with his calendrical inscription, Paul a n n o u n c e s without the fanfare o f public office that, as a slave o f C h r i s t Jesus, he is nevertheless called t o a n n o u n c e this authen­ tic g o o d news. This g o o d n e w s was p r o m i s e d beforehand through the prophets and in t h e h o l y Scriptures, a n d thus is in a c c o r d with not j u s t h a p p e n s t a n c e but divine purpose. T h e g o o d news is regarding G o d s son, w h o was in the line o f D a v i d in his earthly existence, a n d w h o was desig­ nated "son o f G o d " in a powerful way b y the H o l y Spirit, as was indicated b y his resurrection from the dead. This figure—whose h u m a n a n d divine origins are clearly d e m a r c a t e d (unlike the distinguishing features o f the Caesar, apart from b r i n g i n g material prosperity)—is Jesus Christ o u r Lord. O n the basis o f this, we have received divine favor and a calling to apostleship that results in o b e d i e n t worship as we p r o m o t e faith a m o n g the n a t i o n s o n his behalf, a n d the R o m a n Christians r e c o g n i z e d — i f n o t before t h e y h a d read this salutation, certainly b y the t i m e t h e y got to the e n d o f it—that there was o n l y o n e Lord, a n d he was not C a e s a r Augustus, but C h r i s t Jesus. Thus, the letter to the R o m a n s is delivered to the heart o f the e m p i r e with the b o l d statement that there is o n l y o n e true Lord, Jesus Christ. I f what I have outlined is c o r r e c t , this helps us to m a k e sense o f sev­ eral o t h e r i m p o r t a n t parts o f P a u l s letter, not least R o m a n s 13. R o m a n s 1 3 : 1 - 7 is n o t o r i o u s l y difficult in the h i s t o r y o f interpretation, b e c a u s e interpreters have typically cast this passage as d e m a n d i n g unqualified

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

o b e d i e n c e t o the state. This is predicated u p o n the b e l i e f that Paul was o n e w h o was n o t an o p p o n e n t o r antagonist o f the R o m a n hierarchy a n d establishment. I f what I have presented above is c o r r e c t regarding h o w h e b e g i n s his letter t o the R o m a n s , n o t h i n g c o u l d b e further from t h e truth. Paul is in fact a political o p p o n e n t o f t h e R o m a n regime, w h o does n o t hesitate to se n d a missive into t h e midst o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e p r o c l a i m i n g a n o t h e r figure as the L o r d G o d , Jesus Christ. I f this is t h e case, t h e n it m a k e s it even m o r e difficult to understand 58

R o m 1 3 : 1 - 7 as t e a c h i n g unqualified o b e d i e n c e to the state. T h e r e have, o f course, b e e n n u m e r o u s people a n d groups w h o have invoked R o m a n s 13 as a m e a n s o f m a i n t a i n i n g social a n d political control, while perpe­ trating n u m e r o u s u n c o n s c i o n a b l e acts that should m a k e genuine follow­ ers o f Jesus C h r i s t cringe in horror. M a n y have. As a result, there are a n u m b e r o f interpretive reactions that have attempted to c o m e to t e r m s with the m e a n i n g o f this p r o b l e m a t i c passage. O n e is to restrict t h e call to unqualified o b e d i e n c e simply to the R o m a n situation—an interpreta­ tion that misses t h e point, as I have d e m o n s t r a t e d in m y t r e a t m e n t o f t h e o p e n i n g o f R o m a n s . O t h e r s believe that P a u l s c o m m e n t s are addressed t o enthusiasts in t h e R o m a n c h u r c h — a n explanation that does n o t ad­ dress the h e a r t o f t h e interpretive issue. S o m e believe that t h e passage either was n o t written b y Paul o r was a later interpolation, a n d therefore n o t part o f the original letter to t h e R o m a n s — s o l u t i o n s that have n o textual support. O t h e r s take it as establishing an ideal ethic—even i f it c a n n o t b e followed. Finally, s o m e believe that, despite what it teaches regarding unqualified o b e d i e n c e , there are c i r c u m s t a n c e s that call for C h r i s t i a n disobedience—ultimately a counsel o f despair for interpreta­ tion.

59

T h o u g h a n u m b e r o f interpreters c o n t i n u e to recognize p r o b l e m s

with the traditional interpretation, m o s t recent interpreters go to even m o r e e x t r e m e efforts to justify such an e x p l a n a t i o n .

60

I believe that in t h e light o f h o w Paul o p e n s his letter to the R o m a n s , what Paul is saying in R o m 1 3 : 1 - 7 is consistent with his epistolary o p e n ­ ing. T h e letter to the R o m a n s is set within a c o n t e x t in w h i c h there is 58. In this section on Romans 13,1 follow a proposal I made a number of years ago. See Porter, "Romans 13:1 - 7Γ 59. See Ibid., 116-17. The history of some important interpreters is found in Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle, 129-42. This work shows, among other things, that many theologians have not been particularly good biblical interpreters. 60. As a recent example, see Elliott, "Romans 13:1-7," who takes the passage as a warning against supersessionism.

ι86

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

o n l y o n e true Lord, Jesus Christ. H e is the o n e w h o c o m e s about as a result o f the natural order instigated b y G o d as revealed through his pre­ vious prophetic a n n o u n c e m e n t s . His natural birth in t h e line o f David was a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f this ordered world, but resulted in his revelation, through his b e i n g designated s o n o f G o d in power and t h e resurrec­ tion, as the L o r d Jesus Christ. T h e response is o n e o f o b e d i e n c e o f faith b y all t h e nations. This o p e n i n g would m a k e it very difficult, I believe, for Paul to t u r n a r o u n d and say that, in t e r m s o f the realia o f political survival within t h e empire, even t h o u g h we believe there is o n l y o n e Lord, Jesus Christ, we are to offer unqualified o b e d i e n c e to t h e R o m a n state. In fact, I do n o t believe that that is what Paul is stating at all in R o m a n s 13—but quite t h e opposite. In this passage, Paul argues for two i m p o r t a n t c o n c e p t s in relation t o t h e t h e m e o f R o m a n imperialism. O n the o n e hand, he calls t h e authorities themselves to a c c o u n t . H e calls for t h e m to b e j u s t authorities w h o are rightly exercising their divinely instigated powers. O n t h e o t h e r hand, h e calls for R o m a n Christians, and b y implication o t h e r C h r i s t i a n s within t h e authority o f the empire, to recognize the Lordship o f Jesus Christ that does n o t necessarily result in unqualified o b e d i e n c e to R o m e , but that m i g h t result in disobedience, i f such a c o n t e x t warranted it. Paul defines o b e d i e n c e in R o m a n s 13 in t e r m s o f willing submis­ sion, with t h e unstated t h o u g h clearly implied assumption that this o b e d i e n c e is o n l y appropriate to a p o w e r that warrants such o b e d i e n c e , that is, to a j u s t power but n o t to an unjust one. F o r Paul, i f all authority c o m e s from G o d , w h o rules justly, an authority that wishes to rule as a divine i n s t r u m e n t o f j u s t i c e must rule consistently with G o d s justice. As a result, P a u l s discussion in R o m 1 3 : 1 - 7 is c o n c e r n e d with o b e d i e n c e to just authorities, as there are n o o t h e r authorities to w h o m o n e must b e obedient. Unjust authorities are not due o b e d i e n c e , but fall outside the parameters that Paul defines. R o m a n s 13:1 o p e n s with P a u l s c o m m a n d to "let every soul b e o b e ­ dient to t h e superior authorities." "Every soul" includes b o t h Jews and Gentiles, a m o t i f that Paul has developed from the outset o f the letter. In R o m 1 3 : 1 - 7 , Paul uses a n u m b e r o f different t e r m s that fall within the s e m a n t i c field o f words o f o b e d i e n c e . T h e word translated here " b e o b e ­ dient" ( υ π ο τ ά σ σ ω , hupotasso)

is o n e o f those words. M a n y c o m m e n t a ­

tors have taken the word for o b e d i e n c e here as i f it were a strong word implying unqualified o b e d i e n c e , and their translations often render it

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

with language o f strong s u b j e c t i o n (i.e., b e subject to . . . ) . W i t h i n t h e range o f o b e d i e n c e words available, there are s o m e that have a stronger sense o f c o m m a n d than does this word. This w o r d for o b e d i e n c e has a range o f m e a n i n g s , f r o m b e i n g c o m p e l l e d t o voluntary o r willing sub­ m i s s i o n o f o n e s rights. In instances o f voluntary o r willing submission, there is often an a s s u m e d r e c o g n i t i o n o f a larger factor that m a k e s sub­ j e c t i o n expedient o r that c a n render it invalid.

61

Thus, Josephus speaks

o f subordinating o n e s e l f servilely (J.W. 4 . 1 7 5 ) , o r subordinating o n e s e l f b y acknowledging a n o t h e r as m a s t e r (J.W. 2 . 4 3 3 ) . Epictetus ( 1 . 4 . 1 9 ) rec­ o m m e n d s against m a k i n g o n e s e l f o b e d i e n t to another. Ps.-Callisthenes ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) says that it is proper for a wife to b e subject to h e r husband. In t h e N e w Testament, the k i n d o f submission spoken o f is usually volun­ tary. Luke 2:51 says Jesus was o b e d i e n t to his parents a n d Jas 4:7 calls u p o n his readers t o s u b m i t themselves to G o d a n d stand against the devil. H e b r e w s 2:7 asks w h e t h e r it is n o t m o r e reasonable to submit to o n e s spiritual father, as o n e would to an earthly o n e , a n d 1 Pet 5:5 says that t h e y o u n g e r are to b e o b e d i e n t to t h e older, w h i c h is part o f a proper h u m b l e attitude. Thus, this w o r d for o b e d i e n c e s e e m s to include willing subordination. Paul states further that every soul is to b e subordinate to the "au­ thorities." S o m e have tried t o see these authorities as angelic powers, o r anything o t h e r t h a n earthly authorities, but t h e fact that Paul advocates paying taxes t o t h e m (v. 6 ) indicates a f o r m o f earthly authority. Paul is n o t speaking simply o f authorities, but authorities that h e designates as, a c c o r d i n g to m o s t translators, "governing authorities." M o s t scholars interpret this as referring t o either t h e supreme authority, that is, t h e R o m a n emperor, all authority o f the state, o r simply g o v e r n m e n t au­ thority in g e n e r a l .

62

W h a t is usually n o t discussed is t h e m e a n i n g o f

t h e w o r d translated "governing" ( υ π ε ρ έ χ ω , huperecho). two m a j o r u s e s .

63

This w o r d has

O n e is to designate superiority in position, rank, o r

order. M o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s take t h e usage in this sense, for w h i c h there is m u c h evidence. F o r example, Polybius ( 2 8 9 . 4 . 9 ) refers to rulers w h o have superior rank, Pausanias ( 6 . 3 . 1 6 ) speaks o f h o n o r i n g t h e things o f superior strength, D i o g e n e s Laertius ( 6 . 7 8 ) m e n t i o n s m e n o f superior position arriving, a n d 1 T i m 2:2 speaks o f t h o s e in superior positions. 61. See Porter, "Romans 13:1-7," 120-22. 62. Ibid., 122. 63. See ibid., 123-24.

ι88

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

There is a s e c o n d sense o f the word worth considering, however. This is a m e t a p h o r i c a l e x t e n s i o n o f the first sense and indicates superiority in quality. T h e r e are also examples o f this usage. Isocrates ( 4 . 9 5 ) speaks o f cities that are superior b e i n g blotted out, D a n i e l 5:11 ( L X X ) refers to D a n i e l surpassing all the wise m e n o f Babylon, and Sir 3 3 : 7 speaks o f o n e day b e i n g superior to others. T h e question is w h i c h o f these two senses applies to R o m 13:1. T h e r e are three uses o f the participle form o f this verb besides the e x a m p l e in R o m 1 3 : 1 . All o f these o c c u r in Philippians. In Phil 3:8 Paul states that he considers "all things worthless a c c o r d i n g to the superiority o f the knowledge o f C h r i s t Jesus o u r Lord." H e r e P a u l s contrast is not b e t w e e n a positionally superior knowledge and a positionally inferior knowledge, but a qualitatively different knowledge, that is, between things worthless and things valuable. In Phil 4 : 7 , Paul calls the p e a c e o f G o d superior to all understanding. This is not just a positional superiority but a qualita­ tive superiority. T h e last e x a m p l e is Phil 2 : 3 . Here Paul c o m m e n d s the Philippians t o regard others as superior t o themselves. Several c o m m e n ­ tators e n d o r s e t h e positional sense h e r e ,

64

and this m a y b e right in light

o f P a u l s directives regarding h u m i l i t y as seen in the dignity and respect shown t o others. However, t h e qualitative sense m a y also b e w o r t h c o n ­ sidering h e r e as indicating n o t just that they o c c u p y a superior status, but that t h e y genuinely have a qualitatively superior position. This would s e e m to m a k e better sense o f genuine humility as e v i d e n c e d in the e x ­ ample o f the i n c a r n a t i o n , death a n d exaltation o f Jesus Christ. The usage elsewhere o f t h e word "superior" and the c o n t e x t in R o m 13:1 m a k e t h e qualitative sense far m o r e likely. O n the o n e hand, it would b e strange i f Paul were c o m m a n d i n g o b e d i e n c e to t h o s e w h o are posi­ tionally superior, w h e n t h e y would o c c u p y such a position o f superiority anyway. O n the o t h e r hand, in the light o f Pauls confronting the R o m a n s with the true Lord, Jesus Christ, the R o m a n Christians' reaction might b e that while t h e y m a y b e c o m p e l l e d b y force to b e subordinate to the positionally superior leaders, t h e y n o w k n o w the real L o r d and so are not going to b e o b e d i e n t t o any authority except Jesus Christ. Paul says that t h e y should submit themselves to t h o s e authorities that are qualita­ tively superior, that is, just authorities. This u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the verse m a k e s the best sense o f the rest o f the passage. Paul gives reasons why o b e d i e n c e to just authorities should 64. Following a long list of interpreters is Fowl, Philippians, 77.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

occur. O n e is that there is n o legitimate authority except as that authority is put in place b y G o d . This is what m a k e s sense o f R o m 13:3. Rulers, Paul says, are n o t a cause o f fear for t h o s e w h o do g o o d works, b u t for evil. B u t it is o n l y j u s t authorities and rulers about w h o m o n e c a n say this. T h e o n l y way n o t to have fear o f authority and t o b e able to c o u n t o n receiving praise from t h e m is i f t h e y are j u s t a n d h o n o r a b l e . O n l y a just authority c a n b e a m i n i s t e r o f G o d for g o o d purpose. N o c o r r u p t authority c a n guarantee that i f o n e does evil there will b e p u n i s h m e n t , o r that p u n i s h m e n t will n o t b e given to t h o s e w h o do g o o d .

65

Thus, f r o m start to nearly finish, the b o o k o f R o m a n s is P a u l s at­ t e m p t to indicate in t h e face o f R o m a n i m p e r i a l i s m t h e nature o f t h e t r u e Lord, Jesus Christ, a n d what t h e g o o d news o f his lordship m i g h t indicate for t h o s e w h o wish t o follow h i m in the o b e d i e n c e o f faith.

FIRST AND SECOND CORINTHIANS First a n d S e c o n d C o r i n t h i a n s were s o m e o f t h e earliest letters studied regarding the relationship o f P a u l s letters to the R o m a n E m p i r e .

66

No

doubt o n the basis o f the h i s t o r y o f interpretation o f t h e letter t o t h e R o m a n s , study o f R o m a n s for its political sensitivities c a m e late o n t h e scene. T h e traditional view o f t h e letter to the R o m a n s was that it was P a u l s thoughtful a n d c o n s i d e r e d theological reflection. This h a d an i m p a c t o n h o w t h e b o o k was viewed even w h e n t h e political t u r n o c ­ c u r r e d in Pauline studies. This was n o t the case for P a u l s letters to t h e C o r i n t h i a n s . As a result, t h e y provided early fertile g r o u n d for e x a m i n a ­ t i o n o f s o m e o f t h e elements o f e m p i r e that have c o m e to b e associated with Paul a n d his response t o R o m e . T h e C o r i n t h i a n letters in s o m e ways c o n t i n u e a t h e m e i n t r o d u c e d above, b u t in a n o t h e r sense go in a differ­ ent direction t h a n does R o m a n s . T h e r e h a s b e e n m u c h recent w o r k o n the C o r i n t h i a n letters a n d h o w t h e y relate to the n o t i o n o f the b e n e f a c t i o n system, patronage, a n d social order. T h e general t e n o r o f t h o u g h t is that Paul is c o n f r o n t e d with t h e results o f t h e G r e c o - R o m a n patronage system as exemplified b y t h e socially diverse c h u r c h at C o r i n t h , a n d h e sees t h e results o f such an o u t w o r k i n g o f t h e social differentiation. First C o r i n t h i a n s is in m a n y

65. For development of this argument, see Porter, "Romans 13:1-7," 124-36. 66. E.g., Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity; Marshall, Enmity in Corinth; Chow, Patronage and Power; Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets.

190

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ways a w o r k that addresses issues that are at play in the C o r i n t h i a n c h u r c h . T h e r e are, for example, the issues o f allegiance t o various leaders and h e n c e social stratification and differentiation (1 C o r 1 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . T h e b u l k o f the letter itself is given over t o a series o f episodes where it is arguably t h e case that there is abuse o f the R o m a n social structure for the benefit o f s o m e within the church. As a result, Paul is c o m p e l l e d to c o n d e m n : the powerful m a n w h o is apparently sleeping with his father s wife (1 C o r 5:1), the rich a m o n g the C o r i n t h i a n s w h o are taking others o f t h e c h u r c h t o c o u r t (1 C o r 6 : 1 ) , various forms o f sexual impropriety n o doubt b r o u g h t o n and e n c o u r a g e d by position and status, includ­ ing having s e x with prostitutes (1 C o r 6 : 1 2 - 1 6 ) and sexual malpractices a m o n g m a r r i e d couples (1 C o r 7 : 1 - 5 ) , the politically motivated people w h o eat food offered t o idols (1 C o r 8:1), the flaunting o f social status at the L o r d s supper (1 C o r 1 1 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) , and t h o s e w h o take pride in spiritual gifts and their manifestation (1 C o r 1 2 : 1 ) .

67

Similarly in 2 C o r i n t h i a n s ,

Paul s e e m s to call for an a b a n d o n m e n t o f distinctions that would restrict t h e apostolic m i n i s t r y t o certain o n e s w h o o c c u p y positions o f favor (2 C o r 4 : 1 ) and endorses the universal call for h u m a n s to b e r e c o n c i l e d to G o d ( 2 C o r 5 : 2 0 ) . As a result o f such passages, o n e is tempted to argue that Paul was a social and cultural egalitarian in relation to the R o m a n E m p i r e . W h e r e a s R o m e e n d o r s e d a patronage system with the gods at the head, mediated t h r o u g h the great b e n e f a c t o r the e m p e r o r down through various levels o f social and e c o n o m i c hierarchy, Paul advocated an overthrow o f such distinctions, in which certain people believed that they were entitled on the basis o f status, power, and wealth to benefit over and from others. In s o m e ways, this is correct, but, I believe, only incidentally. F o r what Paul is really advocating, I think, is the replacement o f o n e hierarchy with an­ 4

other. Just as h e advocated to the R o m a n s that the t r u e g o o d news" was found in the c o m i n g o f the L o r d Jesus Christ, not Augustus—an instance o f a r e p l a c e m e n t empire, with t h e true divine ruler taking the place o f the false—so Paul argues in the C o r i n t h i a n letters n o t for n o hierarchy, but for a divine hierarchy. This is seen in two significant passages.

68

The first passage is 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 7 in regard to marriage. T h e situ­ ation s e e m s t o b e o n e regarding w h e t h e r it is better for o n e to m a r r y o r 67. Some of these are discussed in more detail in Chow, Patronage and Power, chs. 3 and 4. 68. See Danker, Benefactor, 362.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

191

not, a n d i f o n e is m a r r i e d w h e t h e r that is a preferable state to b e in. Paul says that i f people d o n o t have self-control, it is better for t h e m to m a r r y t h a n t o b u r n with passion. I n this context, h e says, it is better for a wife n o t t o leave h e r husband. H e attributes this n o t j u s t t o his instructions b u t t o t h o s e o f t h e L o r d (1 C o r 7 : 1 0 ) . Paul n e x t m o v e s to a related situ­ ation o f a m a n with an unbelieving wife w h o c o n s e n t s t o live with h i m , stating that she should n o t b e sent away. After just having c l a i m e d a w o r d from t h e L o r d regarding a wife leaving h e r husband, h e n o w claims n o t a w o r d o f t h e L o r d but his o w n statement as authoritative (1 C o r 7 : 1 2 ) . After further explication, Paul t u r n s to t h e situation o f virgins. Again, h e recognizes that h e does n o t have a c o m m a n d o f the Lord, but h e gives his o w n o p i n i o n as o n e w h o is trustworthy b y the m e r c y o f t h e L o r d (1 C o r 7 : 2 5 ) . This progression indicates that Paul is n o t replacing author­ ity with n o authority, o r hierarchy with n o hierarchy. T o t h e contrary, just as h e indicated in R o m a n s that h e is replacing a false "son o f god" with t h e true "son o f God," Paul reflects a hierarchy that s e e m s to flow f r o m t h e L o r d t o Paul to the C o r i n t h i a n s . O n e could probably e x p a n d this a n d say that Paul would r e c o g n i z e G o d as the ultimate authority, Jesus C h r i s t as t h e m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n G o d a n d h u m a n i t y (cf. 1 T i m 2 : 5 ) , Paul as his trustworthy c o m m u n i c a t i v e servant (1 C o r 7 : 2 5 ) , and, at t h e b o t t o m o f the hierarchy, t h o s e in t h e church. Paul reflects a similar ecclesial hierarchy in 2 C o r i n t h i a n s 8. This passage is in the c o n t e x t o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n that Paul was taking up for t h e c h u r c h in Jerusalem. H e m a k e s clear t o t h e C o r i n t h i a n s that the M a c e d o n i a n s , probably including the Philippian c h u r c h a n d others, were very generous in t h e i r support. Even t h o u g h t h e y were p o o r

finan­

cially, t h e y b e g g e d to b e a part o f t h e collection, and Titus h a d b e e n sent to t h e m to c o m p l e t e this w o r k that Paul h a d b e g u n elsewhere. In o t h e r words, from a position o f authority, Paul instructs t h e C o r i n t h i a n s that t h e y are to take t h e role o f benefactors o f others, t h e saints w h o are in n e e d (in J e r u s a l e m ) . Paul puts their potential b e n e f a c t i o n in t e r m s o f h o w t h e y have already b e e n the recipients o f b e n e f a c t i o n from t h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t ( 2 C o r 8 : 9 ) . H e states—in language with s o m e similarities to t h e o p e n i n g o f R o m a n s — t h a t t h e y k n o w the grace o f our L o r d Jesus Christ, w h o b e c a m e p o o r for their ultimate benefit. A l t h o u g h Paul says that h e is n o t c o m m a n d i n g this ( 2 C o r 8:8), h e does state that h e is giving his o p i n i o n in this matter ( 2 C o r 8:9), and that it is to their advantage t o b e a part o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n a n d to b r i n g it to c o m p l e t i o n . So, h e says, "now

192

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

finish doing it also" ( 2 C o r 8:11). T h e r e is again a clear hierarchy o f b e ­ neficence, o n e that b e g i n s with t h e Lord Jesus Christ and passes t h r o u g h Paul t o t h e believers in C o r i n t h and then t o the believers in J e r u s a l e m . Paul does n o t advocate a rejection o f hierarchy, but does e n d o r s e t h e p r o p e r hierarchy. Paul engages in empirical replacement, w h e r e b y t h e imperial cult that originated with t h e patronage and b e n e f i c e n c e o f t h e e m p e r o r and was translated down through the authority structures t o t h e c o m m o n people was n o t eliminated, but was replaced b y a divine hierarchy. T h e divine hierarchy originated with the o n e true G o d , w h o s e s o n t h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t c o m m a n d e d and worked t h r o u g h Paul to the c h u r c h at C o r i n t h and t h r o u g h t h e m to o t h e r saints.

CONCLUSION T h e r e are various ways that o n e m i g h t classify Paul o n t h e basis o f t h e analysis I have offered above. F r o m o n e perspective, and c o n t r a B a r t h ,

69

Paul m a y well l o o k like an early advocate o f civil d i s o b e d i e n c e . Paul, a c c o r d i n g to this reading, replaces the position o f C a e s a r with that o f the L o r d Jesus Christ, and as a result a n e w m o r a l accountability is in place that d e m a n d s appeal not to status, whether imperial o r otherwise, but t o G o d . F r o m a n o t h e r perspective, Paul m a y well l o o k like an insur­ rectionist o r even a revolutionary—or at least a covert revolutionary. H e does not call for an out and out rebellion against R o m a n authority, even t h o u g h h e states in not u n c e r t a i n t e r m s that there is o n l y o n e Lord, Jesus Christ, n o t Caesar. O n e s o b e d i e n c e is to Jesus Christ, and t o C a e s a r o n l y in so far as what is d e m a n d e d is just. F r o m a final perspective, Paul is neither a civil disobedient n o r a quiet revolutionary, but he is simply a t h i n k i n g follower o f the L o r d Jesus Christ. Paul recognizes that the c o m i n g o f Jesus C h r i s t into the world from the line o f David and as the s o n o f G o d with power as manifested from the t i m e o f his resurrec­ tion changes everything—and it certainly changes h o w o n e views the political, social, and e c o n o m i c structures in which o n e lives. F o r Paul, there is n o such t h i n g as a quiescent bifurcation b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n p r o c ­ lamation and day-to-day life. Just as there was n o separation b e t w e e n religion and politics in the divinization o f the e m p e r o r in t h e imperial cult, so for Paul there was n o unhealthy divide b e t w e e n serving G o d and the state. O n e could o n l y serve the state b y following the L o r d Jesus

69. See Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle, 137.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

Christ. F o r the R o m a n s this m e a n t o b e d i e n c e to the e m p i r e w h e r e war­ ranted in the return o f g o o d for g o o d and p u n i s h m e n t o f evil for evil. F o r the C o r i n t h i a n s this m e a n t rejecting a hierarchy o f o b e d i e n c e that was b a s e d o n privilege a n d power inherited from the imperial power structures, a n d replacing t h e m with the structures inaugurated t h r o u g h the instigation o f the L o r d Jesus C h r i s t as the son o f G o d .

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bal, M. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Translated by C. Van Boheemen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. . On Story-Telling: Essays in Narratology. Edited by D. Jobling. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1991. Bevan, E. The House ofSeleucus. 2 vols. London: Edward Arnold, 1902. Boring, Μ. Ε., K. Berger, and C. Colpe. Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. . Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Translated by K. Grobel. London: SCM, 1951,1955. Charlesworth, M. P. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939. Chow, J. K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Netwofa in Corinth. JSNTSup 75. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Conzelmann, H. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Cranfield, C. Ε. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1975,1979. Danker, F. W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982. Davies, J. P. Romes Religious History: Livy Tacitus and Ammianus on their Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Deissmann, A. Bible Studies. Translated by A. Grieve. Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1923. . Lightfrom the Ancient East. 4th ed. Translated by L. R. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927. deSilva, D. A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. WBC 38A, B. Dallas: Word, 1988. Ehrenberg, V., and Α. Η. M. Jones. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Elliott, Ν. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. . "Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda." In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, edited by Richard A. Horsely, 184204. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997.

193

194

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Evans, C. A. Mark 8:27—16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Nelson, 2001. . "Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel." JGRChJ 1 (2000) 67-81. Fee, G. D. Pauline Christology. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Ferguson, J. The Religions of the Roman Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. Fowl, S. E. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Fox, R. Lane. Alexander the Great. London: Dial, 1974. Gorman, M. J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Graves, R. The Greek Myths. Vol. 2. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960. Green, P. Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. . From Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Grieb, A. K. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of Gods Righteousness. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Hammond, N. G. L. Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman. 3rd ed. London: Bristol Press, 1989. Hardy, Thomas. "In the British Museum" (1914). In Selected Poems, edited by David Wright, 166. London: Penguin, 1978. Hays, R. B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1—4.11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hemer, C. J. "The Name of Paul." TynBul 36 (1985) 179-83. Hirschfeld, G„ and F. H. Marshall. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum Part IV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1893-1916. Reprint, Milan: Cisalpino, 1979. Horsley, Richard Α., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. , editor. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel Imperium, Interpretation. FS Krister Stendahl. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Jewett, R. K. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jones, Α. Η. M. Augustus. London: Chatto 8c Windus, 1980. Keesmaat, S. C. Paul and His Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus Tradition. JSNTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Kramer, W. Christ, Lord, Son of God. London: SCM, 1966. Laffi, U. "Le iscrizione relative all'introduzione nel 9 a.C. del nuovo calendario della Provincia d'Asia." SCO 16 (1967) 5-98. Mackay, C. S. Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Marshall, P. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians. WUNT 2.23. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Martin, W. Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. McDonald, L. M., and S. E. Porter. Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. Moo, D. J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Nilsson, M. P. Imperial Rome. Translated by G. C. Richards. London: Bell, 1926. O'Neill, P. Fictions of Discourse: Reading Narrative Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

P O R T E R — P a u l Confronts

Caesar

with the Good

News

Petersen, N. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Petit, P. Pax Romana. London: Batsford, 1969. Porter, S. E. "Hermeneutics, Biblical Interpretation and Theology: Hunch, Holy Spirit or Hard Work?" In Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology, with essays by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Stanley E. Porter, by I. Howard Marshall, 97-127. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. . Romans. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, forthcoming. ."Romans 13:1-7 as Pauline Political Rhetoric."FN3 (1990) 115-39. Porter, S. E., and A. W. Pitts. "Paul's Bible, His Education and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel." JGRChJ 5 (2008) 9-40. Porter, S. E., and S. A. Adams, editors. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Porter, S. E., and S. Bedard. Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea. Toronto: Clements, 2006. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Reasoner, M. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Riesner, R. Pauls Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology. Translated by D. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Ringgren, H., and Α. V. Strom. Religions of Mankind: Today and Yesterday. Translated by N. L. Jensen. Edited by J. C. G. Greig. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967. Sherk, R. K. editor, and trans. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus. TDGR 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Shipley, F. W., translator. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Loeb Classical Library 152. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924. Smallwood, Ε. M. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Stanzel, F. K. A Theory of Narrative. Translated by C. Goedsche. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Stowers, S. K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Strong, E. Apotheosis and After Life: Three Lectures on Certain Phases of Art and Religion in the Roman Empire. London: Constable, 1915. Tarn, W. W. Alexander the Great: II. Sources and Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Taylor, L. R. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. 1931. Reprint, Atlanta: Scholars Press, n.d. Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Translated by J. H. Schutz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Wengst, K. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1987. Wilcken, U. Alexander the Great. Translated by G. C. Richards. New York: Norton, 1967. Wire, A. C. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Witherington, Β., III. Pauls Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

195

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Wright, Ν. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1991. . Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. . "Pauls Gospel and Caesars Empire." In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, edited by Richard A. Horsley, 160-83. FS Krister Stendahl. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000.

7

"This Was Not an Ordinary Death" Empire and Atonement in the Minor Pauline Epistles

M A T T H E W FORREST LOWE

E

V E N τ ο UNBELIEVERS LIKE myself," writes the protagonist o f the P. D . J a m e s novel Children

of Men,

"the cross, stigma o f the b a r b a r i s m o f

officialdom a n d o f m a n s ineluctable cruelty, has never b e e n a c o m f o r t ­ 1

able symbol." This fictional historians assessment is accurate: while t h e offensive c h a r a c t e r (skandalon:

R o m 9:33; 11:9; 1 C o r 1:23; a n d especially

Gal 5:11) o f the cross in the N e w Testament draws m u c h o f its force 2

from D e u t e r o n o m i c law, crucifixion itself was a distinctively R o m a n f o r m o f execution, grimly staking the e m p i r e s claims o f power over life a n d death. As R i c h a r d Horsley and Neil S i l b e r m a n put it, No less than the other powerful forms of visual communication used by the Romans, crucifixion was meant to convey a message ... the cross and the Corinthian column were the two sides of the Roman experience. One offered shade and shelter to all those who would accept the Roman worlds logic and structures of power; the other systematically transformed anyone branded as an en­ emy of the Roman order from a living, breathing person into a 1. James, Children of Men, 50. Ironically echoing this statement, the books cruciform symbolism was largely absent when it was produced as a film (Universal; dir. Alfonso Cuaron) in 2006. 2. As in Gal 3:13 s use of Deut 21:22-23 ("for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs onatree"[NRSV]).

197

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

bruised, bloated, almost unrecognizable corpse. Crucifixion was as much communal punishment and state-sponsored terrorism as it was judicial vengeance against a particular crime. 3

These authors j o i n J a m e s ' protagonist in c o n n e c t i n g t h e terror and cruelty o f the cross to the expression o f imperial power; so, I would argue, did Paul. I will seek to show here that in the m i n o r ( s h o r t e r ) epistles— Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 a n d 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 T i m o t h y , Titus, and P h i l e m o n — P a u l sought out ways o f tualizing

and circumscribing

contex-

Rome's power, largely t h r o u g h his appro­

priation o f language and i m a g e r y from two very different frameworks: the traditions o f the O l d Testament o n the o n e hand, a n d the ideology o f R o m e o n the other. But P a u l s rhetoric is not o n e o f s y n c r e t i s m o r fusion; in the process o f demonstrating h o w the rubrics o f e m p i r e d e c o n s t r u c t , he favors a n e w message that he views as very m u c h in line with the acts o f G o d in the O l d Testament. At the heart o f that message is the death o f Christ—"even death o n a cross"—which will f o r m the focus o f this study, as a t o n e m e n t intersects with empire in Paul s thought. This is hardly the first t i m e that P a u l s interaction with R o m e has b e e n n o t e d in the B i n g h a m C o l l o q u i a . This C o l l o q u i u m m a r k s the tenth anniversary o f the C o l l o q u i u m that p r o d u c e d t h e v o l u m e Life in the of Death:

The Resurrection

Message

of the New Testament,

Face

in w h i c h Peter

Bolt's essay described Rome's imperial power as "a two-edged sword— with b o t h the power to save life and the power to kill." Despite the lofty ideals o f imperial rhetoric, Bolt continued, "to live u n d e r Rome's rule was 4

to live u n d e r the shadow o f death." M o r e recently, Sylvia K e e s m a a t c h o s e imperial contexts as the subject o f her study o f Paul s use o f Scripture in 5

the shorter epistles, a c o n t r i b u t i o n w h i c h I admire but will try n o t to duplicate despite the obvious overlap in p r i m a r y sources. Here, I t h i n k it quite appropriate to assemble these witnesses in u n d e r s c o r i n g h o w Paul appropriates b o t h O l d T e s t a m e n t and R o m a n i m a g e r y in order to c o n s t r u c t a counter-imperial theology, b a s e d around the a t o n e m e n t : es­ sentially, resurrected life in the face o f imperial death. O n e potential stumbling b l o c k must b e addressed before consider­ ing the individual letters o f the " m i n o r " Pauline corpus. In surveying the broadest and m o s t n u m e r o u s sampling o f N e w T e s t a m e n t d o c u m e n t s 3. Horsley and Silberman, Message and the Kingdom, 86. 4. Bolt, "Life, Death, and the Afterlife," 54-55. 5. Keesmaat, "In the Face of Empire."

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

199

a m o n g this C o l l o q u i u m s presentations, this essay bears a substantial part o f the b u r d e n shared b y the contributors o f m a n y o t h e r years, a chal­ lenge invited b y the C o l l o q u i u m s own c u s t o m a r y structure. Systematic m o v e m e n t t h r o u g h t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t presupposes s o m e degree o f b a ­ sic unity, b o t h o f c a n o n a n d o f thought o r worldview, b e t w e e n its b o o k s . Given that authorship even within the Pauline ( o r

deutero-Pauline)

6

corpus is heavily disputed, h o w c a n any claim o f u n a n i m i t y b e m a d e regarding the N e w T e s t a m e n t as a c o h e r e n t w h o l e ?

7

At the very least, the "systematic" m o v e m e n t m e n t i o n e d

above

hints at M a r i l y n M c C o r d A d a m s s possibility o f m a i n t a i n i n g the N e w Testament documents proposals

as " a variety

of loosely

integrated

systematic

w h i c h — i n s o f a r as Scripture is authoritative—demand

the

C h r i s t o l o g i a n s serious consideration," in that a shared theological agen­ 8

da c a n b e confidently proposed. W a r r e n C a r t e r goes s o m e w h a t further, locating a m o n g the N e w T e s t a m e n t authors a variety o f strategies for 9

"negotiating" the imperial world. T h e goal that I have outlined above entails arguing significantly b e y o n d the c o m m o n - a g e n d a a n d negotia­ tion-strategy levels; in showing Pauls thoughts o n the a t o n e m e n t as a rubric that appropriates a n d deconstructs t h o s e o f R o m e , we can give

6. Common Pauline authorship is assumed for the duration of this essay; for a bal­ anced opposing view, see Gorman, Apostle, who argues that Paul is "more or less directly responsible for eleven of the thirteen letters" bearing his name, excluding 1 Timothy and Titus (41 n. 2, summarizing later discussion, 87-89). Even those who choose to doubt Paul's authorship should readily admit that similar imperial contexts—and similar thoughts on Christology, at least to an extent—would have been keenly felt by anyone attempting to write in imitation of Paul. 7. Many biblical theologians have struggled with related issues of canonical unity; the Scripture & Hermeneutics series, edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and Anthony C. Thiselton, and in particular, Out Of Egypt, edited by Bartholomew, Moller, Thiselton, and Healy, and Canon and Biblical Interpretation, edited by Bartholomew, Hahn, Parry, and Seitz, provide a fine range of current opinions. 8. Adams, Christ and Horrors, 23 (italics hers). Just previously, Adams asserts that the New Testament documents reflect "an attempt to resystematize, to offer comple­ mentary and overlapping theological interpretations of, Jesus' human career" (22, italics hers again), but even this definition fails to address the fact that Paul and the authors of Hebrews and Revelation are seldom directly concerned with the details of Jesus'"hu­ man career" ministry. How Adams can continue to refer to the "loose integration" of material as Scripture with a capital S is also in doubt. 9. Carter, Roman Empire and the New Testament, 1,15, and elsewhere, as well as in his contribution to the present volume.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

s o m e direction to a N e w - T e s t a m e n t - w i d e t h e o l o g y o f t h e cross in the face o f empire.

GALATIANS: T H E OFFENSE OF T H E CROSS T h e process o f identifying G o d s messiah with the crucified Jesus was not easy for Paul. In L u k e s first rendering o f the events following P a u l s conversion, A n a n i a s credits Jesus with sending h i m to Saul to restore Sauls sight—but the disciple evidently feels he must further reinforce Jesus' identity as "the Lord," the source and speaker o f Paul's vision, and the giver o f t h e H o l y Spirit (Acts 9 : 1 7 ) . This clarification is u n d e r s c o r e d b y Paul's repetition o f his own initial question (Acts 9:5: " W h o are you, Lord?") and Jesus' response, in the retellings in Acts 2 2 : 8 and 2 6 : 1 5 . Paul's impulse to address Jesus as L o r d (kyrie)

is apparently i m m e d i a t e , as is

a context o f repentance, shown especially t h r o u g h Ananias's words in 2 2 : 1 6 . But it would likely have taken a bit longer to u n d e r s t a n d t h e reper­ cussions o f seeing a crucified Jew as the agent o f G o d , as G o d incarnate. H o w can Paul incorporate a cause o f ritual curse and a humiliating form o f execution into his theology? Here in Galatians, the cross itself already forms t h e basis o f a lan­ guage o f repentance and discipleship. T o o often studies o f G a l 5 : 2 2 - 2 6 yield only "the fruit o f the Spirit," all but ignoring the s h o c k i n g words o f 5:24: "those w h o b e l o n g to Christ Jesus have crucified t h e flesh with its passions and desires." H o w can Paul refer to the R o m a n torture device as an i n s t r u m e n t o f purification? T h o u g h the cross c o n t i n u e s to cause persecution ( 6 : 1 2 ) , it is also s o m e h o w a foundation (apparently the only valid foundation) for boasting, in that the cross b e l o n g i n g to "our L o r d Jesus Christ" is n o w the m e a n s "by which the world has b e e n crucified to m e , and I to the world" in Paul's postscript ( 6 : 1 4 ) . Scandal! Yet Paul uses such positive language o f the cross for m o r e than its initial, theological s h o c k value. B e i n g "crucified with Christ" ( G a l 2 : 2 0 ) m e a n s that Christ lives in and t h r o u g h Paul; the S o n o f G o d loved and "gave h i m s e l f " for t h e apostle—enabling h i m to speak o f this as an act o f redeeming

(exegorasen

y

3 : 1 3 - 1 4 ; exagorase,

4:5) and t h r o u g h redemption

c o m e s adoption into the people with w h o m G o d c o m m u n e s and fights against e n e m i e s ( D e u t 9:3; 2 0 : 4 ) . T h e atoning death o f God's messiah and S o n restores this relationship b y his " b e c o m i n g a curse for us" ( G a l 3 : 1 3 ) , entering the situation o f the cursed in all its darkness a n d evil. Put a n o t h e r way,

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

Because crucifixion renders its victim ritually cursed and so cast into outer darkness, excluded from the people of God and cut off from the God Who goes in and out with them (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13), crucifixion appears decisively to defeat Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. But if Christ comes to save human persons from the ruinous power of horrendous evil, then cruci­ fixion is precisely the sort of thing that would make his mission successful. If God takes Gods stand with the cursed, the cursed are not cut off from God after all! 10

It is possible t o m a k e m a n y o f these arguments without reference to R o m e ; yet it is t h e e m p i r e s very involvement in the crucifixion that m a k e s the a r g u m e n t s so curious. T h e R o m a n s did n o t invent crucifixion; it was p r a c t i c e d as a m e t h o d o f torture a n d execution in t i m e periods a n d places b o t h before a n d after the R o m a n era, a n d in various forms, 11

n o t necessarily even involving a conventional c r o s s . T h e O l d Testament records examples o f crucifixion ( o n trees) in Josh 8:29 (the king o f A i ) a n d 1 0 : 2 6 (the kings o f H e b r o n , Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, and—eerily— Jerusalem, all evidently p o s t m o r t e m ) . B u t in P a u l s M e d i t e r r a n e a n , f i r s t - c e n t u r y - C E world, crucifixion was a distinctly R o m a n t o o l o f social c o n t r o l ,

12

o r in Horsley a n d Silberman's

description cited above, t h e m o s t blatant example o f "state-sponsored terrorism." T h e R o m a n s perfected the process, using trees, single b e a m s , a n d "variously shaped crosses" to destroy those w h o threatened the alli m p o r t a n t pax

Romana;

as M i c h a e l G o r m a n concludes, "there could

b e n o t h i n g m o r e irrational o r m o r e u n - R o m a n t h a n to h o n o r — n o t to m e n t i o n deify!—a

m a n crucified b y the imperial authorities."

13

B u t in

Galatians, Rome's m e t h o d o f cruel e x e c u t i o n is unveiled as a m e a n s t o an end: Jesus' crucifixion b e c o m e s the p a r a m o u n t execution o f G o d s plan. That is, t h e ( R o m a n ) cross o f C h r i s t emerges as Paul's h e r m e n e u t i c a l lens for reading, interpreting, a n d drawing ethics from Scripture. 10. Adams, Christ and Horrors, 41. 11. Hengel, Crucifixion, 22-23, cited in Maslen and Mitchell, "Medical Theories," 185-88. Noting mass-crucifixion accounts from Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE) and Josephus (37-ca.l00 CE), in which victims were hung upside down, impaled by their genitals, or in other positions according to the Roman soldiers' whim, the authors define cruci­ fixion broadly as being suspended "from a cross or similar structure until dead" (185, emphasis added). 12. Maslen and Mitchell, "Medical Theories," 185. 13. Gorman, Apostle, 12 (italics his). Gorman includes a photo of a first-century sculpture of a single-beam crucifixion on the previous page.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

N o r was Paul alone in shaping his exegesis a r o u n d t h e cross; later Christian writers followed his example. R e a d i n g G a l 3 : 1 3 , C h r y s o s t o m ( 3 4 4 / 3 5 4 - 4 0 7 , fl. 3 8 6 - 4 0 7 C E ) r e m a r k s that "just as b y dying h e snatched from death those w h o were going to die, so also w h e n he suffered the 14

curse h e released t h e m from t h e curse." Epiphanius (ca. 3 1 5 - 4 0 3 ) writes that the incarnation "and the cross fulfilled the plan for t h e loosing o f the 15

curse." W h a t Paul m o d e l e d for these writers was essentially a exegesis,

cruciform

allowing t h e cross to transform his view o f t h e Scriptures and

the world around h i m ; the cross even m a r k s his signature, as he writes in his postscript that h e carries "the m a r k s o f Jesus b r a n d e d o n m y b o d y " (Gal 6 : 1 7 ) . T h e audacity o f this claim, linking the fulfillment o f Scripture to the suffering inflicted by the empire, would have s h o c k e d P a u l s read­ ers, especially those a m o n g his Jewish audiences. Perhaps it should c o n ­ tinue to s h o c k — o r s c a n d a l i z e — m o d e r n eyes and ears as well.

EPHESIANS: A P O W E R M Y T H APPROPRIATED Ephesians has received little attention a m i d the recent explorations o f P a u l s imperial contexts. It benefits from n o direct t r e a t m e n t in stud­ ies such as R i c h a r d Horsley s Paul

and Empire,

a n d warrants o n l y a

single reference out o f all t h e essays in his subsequent v o l u m e , 16

and Politics.

Paul

I f there is imperial material here, its influences are likely

subtle—but not necessarily untraceable. Particularly p r o m i s i n g is the language o f the "powers," a frequent subject o f study in Paul and the rest o f the N e w Testament that finds a m a j o r locus in E p h e s i a n s .

17

Clinton

A r n o l d and Walter W i n k have argued independently that the a u t h o r s terminology, while imprecise, is intended to b e all-inclusive. In A r n o l d s words, Christ's s u p r e m a c y over "all things and the powerful rule o f the L o r d are repeatedly asserted throughout the whole o f the epistle . . . the author leaves n o doubt whatsoever in the m i n d s o f the readers that any conceivable hostile power' is outside and independent o f Christ's 14. Chrysostom, Horn. Gal. 3:13; cited in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 42. 15 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.12.3 (Second Refutation of Marcion), cited in Edwards, ed., Galatians 42. y

16. The sole exception in the second book comes in Wright s mention of Eph 1:19-22 in "Pauls Gospel." 17. The work of Walter Wink has proved influential in New Testament scholar­ ship; see his Naming the Powers. For examples of similar work specific to Paul and to Ephesians, see Arnold, Ephesians, and Powers of Darkness.

L O W E — "This Was Not an Ordinary dominion."

18

Death"

203

W i n k locates a c o m p a r a b l y universal s c o p e in t h e " c o m ­

prehensive" list o f E p h 6 : 1 2 ("rulers" [archas]; " c o s m i c powers [kosmokratoras] forces [pneumatika]

"authorities"

[exousias];

o f this present darkness"; and "spiritual

o f evil in t h e heavenly places"). This list, a c c o r d i n g

to W i n k , c o u l d have b e e n i n t e n d e d t o include even "the spirit o f empire, w h i c h perpetuates itself t h r o u g h a succession o f rulers a n d w h i c h was so powerful, in the c a s e o f R o m e , that it was able to sustain the m a d n e s s o f three e m p e r o r s in o n e century."

19

Previous scholarship thus presents

ample precedent for c o n s i d e r i n g earthly, political forces a m o n g t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t s p a n t h e o n o f powers. M o r e recently, T i m o t h y G o m b i s has p r o p o s e d that p o r t i o n s o f Ephesians ( 1 : 2 0 — 2 : 2 2 , and t h e allusion to P s a l m 6 8 in 4 : 8 - 1 0 ) should b e read in light o f t h e divine warfare myths o f t h e ancient N e a r East. Interpreted t h r o u g h this paradigm, P a u l s arguments catalog the tri­ u m p h s o f G o d in Christ, vindicating t h e c l a i m o f Christ's exaltation as L o r d ( E p h 1 : 2 0 - 2 3 , supported in 2 : 1 - 2 2 ) a n d celebrating Christ's tri­ u m p h a n t a s c e n t in 4 : 8 - 1 0 .

2 0

" B y his death," writes G o m b i s , "Christ has

t r i u m p h e d over t h e divisive effects o f the e n e m y powers . . . the ascent o f C h r i s t is t h e t r i u m p h a n t procession o f the c o n q u e r i n g W a r r i o r to his t h r o n e , f r o m w h i c h h e will bless his people with gifts."

21

W h i l e c o n v i n c i n g , Gombis's arguments are n o t c o m p r e h e n s i v e e n o u g h to address t h e multiple levels o f "powers" that Paul acknowledges; but G o m b i s ' s repeated use o f t h e t h e m e o f triumph

hints at a viable adap­

tation for his research. His m a i n c o n c e r n is to show that Ephesians owes a debt t o t h e ideology o f divine warfare, m y t h s o f p o w e r a n d exaltation that t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t traditions frequently imitated a n d appropriated. G o d - a s - d i v i n e - w a r r i o r fought against ( a n d t r i u m p h e d over) m y t h o ­ logical e n e m i e s identified variously as R a h a b , Leviathan, River, a n d S e a , paralleling C a n a a n i t e a n d o t h e r a n c i e n t Near-Eastern m y t h i c accounts; t h e v i c t o r i o u s warrior role was at t i m e s transferred at least partially t o

18. Arnold, Ephesians, 129. 19. Wink (Naming the Powers, 54-55) also indicates that for the entire New Testament, the "imprecise, liquid, interchangeable" language of power would have been used and interpreted in the "most comprehensive sense," representing both heavenly and earthly powers, denoting human and structural dimensions (9,100-101). 20. Gombis, "Ephesians 2," and "Cosmic Lordship." 21. Gombis, "Cosmic Lordship," 377,379.

204

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Israels kings, with P s a l m 6 8 as o n e o f m a n y e x a m p l e s .

22

S o m e interpret­

ers have even used this p s a l m to posit G o d s kingly rule over t h e earth as explicitly imperial in n a t u r e .

23

B u t while the N e w T e s t a m e n t authors

could easily have inherited from their Scriptures an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f their L o r d as a reigning (imperial?) warrior, this is not t h e o n l y ideology t h e y were familiar with. A re-reading o f Ephesians 4 and its power-myth O l d Testament referent-shows a subtle awareness o f Rome's presence and power. A r n o l d rightly cautions against strictly political appraisals o f t h e p o w e r s ,

24

as

such analyses fail to a c c o u n t for the elasticity o f t h e "power" c h o r d s struck b y the N e w Testament. But i f we plug in the applications o f W i n k s argu­ m e n t for the empire as a power simultaneously spiritual a n d structural, the image o f Christ's victorious ascent takes o n a n o t h e r layer o f m e a n ­ ing. Having invoked Ps 6 8 : 1 8 in E p h 4:8 ("Therefore it is s a i d / W h e n he ascended o n high he m a d e captivity itself a captive'") as a description o f Christ, t h e author employs t h e t e r m s ascended

a n d descended

through

the next two verses, t e r m s w h ic h have given interpreters a l m o s t as m u c h trouble as the apparent m i s q u o t a t i o n here (4:8b, '"he gave gifts to his people,'" where t h e original has G o d receiving [ L X X :

[edoken] elabes]

gifts in tribute, not giving t h e m ) . D o e s the reworking o f O l d T e s t a m e n t language indicate a p o l e m i c against Jewish uses o f the s a m e p s a l m ,

25

a

Pentecost-oriented u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Christ's ascent (in resurrection) 26

and descent (as t h e gift-giving S p i r i t ) , o r crucifixion as descent with resurrection as t r i u m p h a n t a s c e n s i o n ?

27

This final option b e c o m e s m o r e c o m p e l l i n g w h e n we recall t h e let­ ter s first-century social context. T h e emphasis o n t h e m e s o f t r i u m p h

22. Isa 27:1 and Ps 29 can also stand as representative texts of the Divine Warriors role. 23. Roberts, "Enthronement," 685: "the surrounding nations would come up to Jerusalem to pay tribute to this imperial God," citing Ps 68:30-33. 24. Arnold, Powers of Darkness, 173. 25. So Moritz, Profound Mystery, 71-85; also cited in Gombis, "Cosmic Lordship," 370. 26. So Caird, "Descent of Christ," 535-45. Gombis ("Cosmic Lordship," 370-71) rightly critiques the direct identification of Christ with the Spirit. 27. See, for example, Barth, Broken Wall, 262-63. In "Cosmic Lordship" (372), Gombis appeals to Barths Ephesians 1-3,433, to counter the "in-descent" proposal that Christ descended back to earth via the Spirit.

L O W E — "This Was Not an Ordinary shared b y G o m b i s

2 8

and Markus Barth

29

Death"

205

takes o n sharper focus in light

o f the images o f t r i u m p h that t h e early Christian c o m m u n i t i e s would have k n o w n : as t h e R o m a n s perfected earlier practices o f crucifixion, so t h e y developed t h e ancient N e a r E a s t e r n traditions o f v i c t o r y - p r o c e s s i o n into magnificent events o f c e r e m o n y a n d propaganda. T h o u g h the i m p e ­ rial senate rarely granted t h e right to a triumphus

parade,

30

the events

themselves were m e m o r a b l e , a n d were c o m m e m o r a t e d in c o i n s a n d ar­ chitecture depicting subjugated e n e m i e s , captured spoils o f war, a n d t h e e n d o r s e m e n t o f deities such as t h e personified R o m a a n d O i k o u m e n e ( R o m e a n d t h e civilized w o r l d ) , a n d winged Nike ( v i c t o r y ) .

31

Where

t h e divine warfare m y t h s c u l m i n a t e d in ascent to a divine t h r o n e , t h e c l i m a x o f imperial t r i u m p h s c a m e at the ascent o f Rome's Capitoline 32

hill, where t h e captive o p p o n e n t s were c e r e m o n i a l l y e x e c u t e d . T h e i m ­ age was obviously a familiar o n e to Paul, w h o uses t r i u m p h t e r m i n o l o g y explicitly t o highlight his o w n role as Christ's suffering follower—and prisoner!—in 2 C o r 2 : 1 4 ("thanks b e to G o d , w h o in Christ always leads us in t r i u m p h a l procession" [thriambeuonti])

a n d as further m o c k e r y o f

33

t h e "powers" in C o l 2 : 1 5 ( b e l o w ) . W h e n Ephesians states that Christ 28. In addition to the examples already provided, see Gombis, "Cosmic Lordship," 375: "the author portrays Christ as the victorious Divine Warrior who has the right to give gifts to his people because of his triumphs." 29. Barth's language in Broken Wall is even more helpful to our purposes here: "Ephesians adds triumphantly that what imprisoned men, Christ made a (i.e., 'his') prisoner through the resurrection" (262). 30. Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 129, complies a list of at least eight such events for victorious generals and emperors: Julius's quadruple triumph (45 BCE: Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, Africa); Augustus's triple (27 BCE: Illyrium, Egypt, Actium); two for Tiberius (8-7 BCE and 12 CE: Germany and Pannonia, with the second repeated for Germanicus, 17 CE); Claudius (Britain, 44 CE); Nero (Tiridates, 62-63 CE); and most notably for New Testament audiences, Vespasian and Titus (June 71, celebrating the fall of Jerusalem, September 70 CE). 31. Head, "Mark," attests to the impact of the triumph in positing Mark and Josephus as co-spectators at Vespasian and Titus's parade. For the effects of numismatic propa­ ganda, see Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 76-98,135-40, on personified deities and the Gaul, Germania, and Judea Capta coins; and Esler,"Rome in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature." Esler's essay summarizes and develops his work in "God's Honour and Rome's Triumph." 32. Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 142-44, uses this feature to modify previous scholarship on Paul's use of triumph imagery in Colossians. 33. Knowles offers an in-depth exploration of Paul's use of triumph and its impli­ cations for ministry in "Triumph and Captivity, Sacrifice and Sufficiency," the second chapter of his We Preach Not Ourselves, 75-111.

206

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T 4

ascended o n high" a n d " m a d e captivity itself a captive," t h e letter s first

readers would surely have r e c o g n i z e d t h e reworked p s a l m o f divine tri­ u m p h , but t h e y would have seen m o r e than o n e tradition appropriated: the author shrewdly s u p e r i m p o s e s a R o m a n i m a g e as an overlay. C h r i s t leads his captives in an a l m o s t u n m i s t a k a b l y imperial t r i u m p h . C o m m e n t a t o r s ancient and m o d e r n have found t h e s a m e t h e m a t i c language in o t h e r imperial venues, such as t h e gladiatorial arena. Ignatius (ca. 3 5 - 1 0 7 C E ) , u n d e r R o m a n m i l i t a r y guard from S m y r n a , would later imitate P a u l s t o n e in writing to t h e Ephesian c h u r c h e s , " I a m a convict; you have b e e n freed. I a m in danger; y o u are safe," before adding the telling remark, "You are the route for G o d s v i c t i m s " — a n acknowledg­ m e n t o f the city s position o n t h e route by w h i c h c r i m i n a l s were led t o supply R o m e s a m p h i t h e a t e r .

34

W i n k depicts early C h r i s t i a n s as rebels

w h o denied the e m p e r o r s p o w e r b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g a h i g h e r power, and thus entered "into the p o w e r - g a m e o n t h e e m p i r e s t e r m s a n d lost, and the rules o f t h e g a m e required their liquidation." H e goes on: When Christians knelt in the Colosseum to pray as lions bore down on them, something sullied the audiences thirst for re­ venge. Even in death these Christians were not only challenging the ultimacy of the emperor and the "spirit" of empire but also demonstrating the emperors powerlessness to impose his will even by death. The final sanction had been publicly robbed of its power. Even as the lions lapped up the blood of the saints, Caesar was stripped of his arms and led captive in Christ s tri­ umphal procession. His authority was shown to be only penul­ timate after all. 35

Seeing b o t h sides o f t r i u m p h and captivity, e x p e r i e n c i n g ( w h e t h e r personally o r vicariously) the status o f b o t h victor and v i c t i m , Paul, Ignatius and their Ephesian r e a d e r s

36

would have found a c h r i s t o c e n t r i c

34. The contrastingfirst-person,second-person language resembles Pauls "If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation" and "So death is at work in us, but life in you" (2 Cor 1:6 and 4:12, NRSV), as well as the application of Ps 44:22 in Rom 8:36, "For your sake we are being killed [TNIV: "we face death"] all day long." See Ign. Eph. 12.2, cited in Richardson, trans, and ed., Early Christian Fathers, 91. 35. Wink, Naming the Powers, 111. 36. To qualify a sweeping statement on these early Christian authors and audi­ ences: certainly the Ephesian letters attributed to Paul and Ignatius would have been intended for larger audiences, perhaps in a circular-letter format. Even if the authentic­ ity of both epistles is questioned, no more than a single generation elapsed between the two, and the similarities in tone have already been noted. Richardson, who makes

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary recasting o f t h e t r i u m p h to b e an appropriate

Death" i m a g e — i f n o t always a

positive o n e . T h e m e s o f divine e n t h r o n e m e n t ideology drawn from t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t are surely present in Ephesians, but t h e y are adapted t o m a t c h t h e t r i u m p h a l p r o c e s s i o n s o f t h e day. T h o u g h R o m a n victors m a y c o n t i n u e t o parade their captives as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f their prowess, C h r i s t is already t h e true triumphator,

w h o s e lordship supersedes b o t h

that o f C a e s a r a n d whatever spiritual powers m a y lie b e h i n d Rome's rule. Ν . T. W r i g h t has n o t e d that O l d T e s t a m e n t images o f h u m a n a n d divine kingship f o r m "one o f t h e e c h o c h a m b e r s within w h i c h Paul uses t h e word lord

o f Jesus";

37

I suggest that in c o m p l e m e n t a r y fashion, d e m ­

onstrations o f p o w e r in R o m a n military practice f o r m e d a n o t h e r such "echo chamber." W h e n Christ's death a n d resurrection—in Ephesians 4 , his d e s c e n t a n d ascent, with captivating powers in tow—are phrased as 38

a "victorious s i e g e " a n d a t r i u m p h over his opponents, the implications for t h e t h e o l o g y o f the a t o n e m e n t are profound.

PHILIPPIANS: NO ORDINARY DEATH I f captivity supplied p a r t o f t h e t h e m a t i c c o n t e n t o f E p h e s i a n s , t h e e x ­ p e r i e n c e is even m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l t o Philippians, as Paul w r o t e f r o m u n d e r R o m a n guard. W h e t h e r Paul's c h a i n s ( P h i l 1:7) are literal o r n o t , a n d w h e t h e r t h e P r a e t o r i a n G u a r d ( 1 : 1 3 ) refers t o that in R o m e o r a n o t h e r f o r m o f c u s t o d y in E p h e s u s o r C a e s a r e a , his i m p r i s o n m e n t is i m p e r i a l .

39

T h i s c o n t e x t i n f o r m s at least t h r e e i m a g e s in t h e letter:

c i t i z e n s h i p , p e a c e , a n d t h e c r u c i f i x i o n as t h e focal p o i n t o f t h e C h r i s t h y m n in P h i l i p p i a n s 2 .

more general comments about the resemblance between Ignatiuss frank quality and Pauls, dates Ignatiuss letter and subsequent martyrdom broadly within Trajan's 98-117 CE reign {Early Christian Fathers, 74-75). More specific to Pauline authorship on this issue, Elliott, Anti-Imperial Message," 180, claims that Paul "uses the metaphor of the triumphal procession more sparingly" than the putative author(s) of Colossians and Ephesians. While the current proposal cannot prove conclusively that Colossians and Ephesians are Pauline, it does serve to strengthen the thematic and literary relationships between the two letters and the language of 2 Corinthians. a

37. Wright,"Pauls Gospel," 168. 38. Arnold, Ephesians, 160: the church receives its gifts "as a direct result of Christ's victorious siege against the principalities and powers'" (citing Eph 4:8, cf. 1:19-22; italics added). 39. Oakes,"Gods Sovereignty," 127.

207

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

2θ8

Citizenship Peter O a k e s amply d e m o n s t r a t e s P a u l s confidence that t h e gospel is sovereign over his o w n i m p r i s o n e d situation as well as the Philippian believers' c o n t e x t o f suffering (as in Phil 1 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) , just as G o d exercises sovereignty over the R o m a n authorities t h r o u g h C h r i s t .

40

Paul's appeal

takes the form o f a m e t a p h o r that t h e Philippians should find familiar. W h e n he asks t h e m to "live your life in a m a n n e r wor t hy o f the gospel o f Christ," the verb is politeuesthe,

o r "live as a citizen." S o m e translations

render the phrase as the T N I V does, "as citizens

of heaven

n e r worthy," acknowledging a l i n k to t h e c o g n a t e politeuma

live in a m a n ­ (citizenship

o r c o m m o n w e a l t h ) in 3:20 ( N R S V ) : " B u t o u r citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are e x p e c t i n g a Savior, t h e L o r d Jesus Christ."

41

O n e c o m m e n t a t o r uses evidence from Acts ( 1 6 : 1 2 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 3 6 - 4 0 ) to sup­ p o r t the idea o f t h e Philippians' pride in their R o m a n citizenship, and Paul's reference to his o w n citizen status to expedite his release while imprisoned there.

42

T h o u g h s o m e m a y overestimate the degree o f Paul's

own pride o n this c o u n t ,

43

the challenge o f his two c o n n e c t e d references

was not overlooked by ancient interpreters: C l e m e n t o f Alexandria ( 1 5 0 - 2 1 1 ? C E ) , c o m m e n t i n g o n Phil 3 : 2 0 , n o t e d that to b e mindful o f 44

heavenly citizenship was t o live as an expatriate. As closely as Paul m a y have related to the m e m b e r s o f his congregations, his travels a n d impris­ o n m e n t s must have taught h i m a degree o f expatriated d i s c o n n e c t i o n that would have served h i m well in m e e t i n g his own challenge.

Peace As with m a n y o f his letters, Paul greets his church with " G r a c e to you and peace from G o d o u r Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:2). H e underscores t h e divine origin o f that blessing as h e closes this epistle, however, n a m i n g "the p e a c e o f G o d " as that which guards the Philippians' 40. Ibid., 126-27. 41. Kent, "Philippians," 118 and 120 n. 27: the cognate "makes it clear that the citi­ zenship Paul had in mind was not Roman but heavenly." Still, the essential metaphor is one of Roman origin. 42. Ibid., points then to the challenge of living up to a "vastly more significant citi­ zenship" in 3:20. 43. See Eisenman, James, 24, where Paul "almost makes a religion out of loyalty to Rome" in Rom 13:1-7. 44. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.95, cited in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 277.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary "hearts a n d y o u r m i n d s in C h r i s t Jesus" ( 4 : 7 ) ,

Death" 45

and promising t h e m

that "the G o d o f p e a c e will b e with you" as t h e y imitate P a u l s o w n e x ­ ample ( 4 : 9 ) . B u t to leave this as a purely spiritual b e n e d i c t i o n is to m i s s t h e i r o n y o f t h e letters p r o v e n a n c e : p e a c e is a questionable c o m m o d ­ ity for a p r i s o n e r o f an e m p i r e m a i n t a i n e d b y "conquest, subjugation, a n d intimidation."

46

M a r i u s V i c t o r i n u s (fourth c e n t u r y C E ) would later

c o n n e c t G o d s p e a c e t o a state o f security and rest, while A m b r o s i a s t e r notes that t h e call to p e a c e is m a d e by the G o d o f p e a c e , a virtue that so characterizes G o d that G o d will n o t "by t h e terror o f his manifested 47

p o w e r . . . force even the unwilling into subjection." F o r Paul a n d for later C h r i s t i a n writers, Rome's p e a c e is i n i m i c a l to t h e p e a c e called for by G o d .

4 8

The Crux of the

Christ-Hymn

T h e early c h u r c h r e c o g n i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the cross as the place o f a historical a n d violent event. Philippians 2 : 6 - 1 1 is t h e foremost e x a m p l e o f t h e N e w Testament's h y m n i c and devotional materials c o n c e r n i n g t h e crucifixion;

49

w h e n t h e passage drew c o m m e n t a r y f r o m the c h u r c h fa­

thers, t h e y were q u i c k t o point out Paul's emphasis o n t h e brutality o f t h e cross, evident in his appropriation o f t h e h y m n . Tertullian (ca. 1 5 5 - 2 3 0 C E ) finds a k e y indicator o f Christ's h u m a n m o r t a l i t y where Paul "adds

45. Gorman, commenting on the connection between peace and joy (rejoicing) in 4:4-7, adds that for "an imprisoned apostle and a persecuted church, the two belong together" (Apostle, 446). 46. Ibid., 8 ("It was, in other words, peace through war"), 8-12, and 108, where the author compares the Jewish contextual meaning of peace ("right relations among hu­ mans and between humans and God") to the Greco-Roman context: "imperial rule and the cessation of internal and external conflict." 47. Edwards, ed., Galatians, 282, 284, citing Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Philippians 4.7, and Ambrosiaster, Epistle to the Philippians 4.9. Though both writers speak primarily of peace on a spiritual level, note how each statement blurs the heav­ enly/earthly distinction, effectively borrowing from both Jewish and Roman contexts as Gorman outlines them above. 48. Compare Chrysostoms remark on Eph 4:3, from Horn. Eph. 9.4.1-3: the "bond of peace" is "not a chain that bruises" (as Roman chains can); in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 159. 49. Longenecker, New Wine, 12,15, cites Phil 2:6-11 as the "most obvious" of early confessional materials. Among his exegetical questions when he considers the passage in greater depth (29-30) is,"Who are those 'in heaven and on earth and under the earth who are to bow before that name?"

209

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

the heavily laden words even unto the death

of the cross. F o r h e would

n o t exaggerate the atrocity in extolling his power in a conflict w h i c h h e k n e w to have b e e n i m a g i n a r y o r a m e r e f a n t a s y "

50

Tying the b o r r o w e d

h y m n i c image to P a u l s o w n use o f D e u t 2 1 : 2 3 in G a l 3:13, C h r y s o s t o m later r e m a r k e d that C h r i s t h a d h u m b l e d h i m s e l f twice: first in "taking the form o f a slave," and t h e n again in dying such an i g n o m i n i o u s death. "And in death h e appeared t o b e a reprobate. This was n o t an o r d i n a r y death."

51

Not all c o m m e n t a t o r s c h o s e to highlight Rome's involvement in Jesus' death; Paul h i m s e l f d o e s n o t explicitly m e n t i o n the e m p i r e here ei­ ther. B u t as in Galatians, so here: the cross, vividly evoked in Phil 2 : 6 - 1 1 as a too-familiar place o f death, is m o r e than just a t o o l for execution; it shapes the face o f humility. T o b e o b e d i e n t to death o n a cross is to b e obedient to R o m e , to the e m p i r e s p o w e r over life and death. This o b e d i e n c e does n o t equate to u n q u e s t i o n i n g assent. K e e s m a a t finds in P a u l s rhetoric in R o m a n s and Galatians an attempt to reorient his read­ ers' search for j u s t i c e from o n e story to another—drawing t h e m from C a e s a r s "imperial narrative" t o "the story o f Israel as reinterpreted in 52

light o f the story o f Jesus." Especially in Galatians, this reorienting pro­ cess addresses t h e o d i c y from a perspective o f suffering for the sake o f the counter-imperial g o s p e l .

53

Ephesians 4 phrased the crucifixion and resurrection as descent and ascent; Philippians plots a similar arc for Christ, as G o d also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11, NRSV) 50. Tertullian, Marc. 5.20.4-5, cited in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 249; italics in original. 51. Chrysostom, Horn. Phil. 8.2.5-11, cited in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 250. Many further comments on the voluntary, honorable, kenotic, and exemplary nature of Christ's humiliation can be collected from ibid., 246-50. 52. Keesmaat, "Psalms," 139. 53. Ibid., 157-58, drawing in part from Ν. T. Wright and Richard B. Hays.

L O W E — "This Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

B u t w h o are t h o s e w h o are to bow, a n d h o w is Christ's n a m e "above ev­ e r y n a m e " ? Even these questions c a n find i m p e r i a l - c o n t e x t responses— t h o u g h t h o s e are n o t t h e o n l y possible answers. Again, a m o r e n u a n c e d view is called for. S o m e o f the apparent o p p o n e n t s are spiritual, o r per­ haps ontological: this is o n e o f several passages where early Christian in­ terpreters saw e n e m i e s such as enmity w o u n d e d o r slain ( E p h 2 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , captivity 2:8).

54

led as a captive ( E p h 4 : 8 ) , a n d death

itself put to death (Phil

B u t this s e c o n d h a l f o f t h e C h r i s t - h y m n , the s o n g that O a k e s at­

tributes directly to Paul, is also deliberately styled to evoke the ascent 55

a n d exaltation o f t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r — e v e n as it plots an arc exactly opposite servant

t o Caesar's ascension, as C h r i s t has d e s c e n d e d to t h e status o f o r slave before his crucifixion, resurrection, a n d e x a l t a t i o n .

56

In

asserting Jesus Christ's position as lord over t h e c o s m o s a n d even t h e underworld, Paul is using i m a g e r y b o r r o w e d from Isaiah to supersede a n d rewrite even t h e emperor's claims o f ultimate power.

57

W h e n e v e r Paul's c h u r c h e s r e a d about, o r m a d e reference to, t h e cross; w h e n e v e r we r e a d o r refer t o it; i n d e e d , w h e n e v e r we use d e ­ s c r i p t o r s s u c h as crucial,

excruciating,

a n d especially cruciform,

the

a t o n e m e n t c a r r i e s a r e m i n d e r o f e m p i r e . Is it even possible t o s p e a k o f t h e a t o n e m e n t w i t h o u t t h i s "death o n a c r o s s " f r o m Philippians? E u g e n e L e m c i o equates t h e two, identifying " a t o n e m e n t t h e o l o g y " with the "theology o f the cross."

58

I f t h e y are equivalent o r s y n o n y m o u s ,

59

t h e n t o investigate a n y f o r m o f a t o n e m e n t t h e o l o g y is t o b e r e m i n d e d o f R o m e — f o r the cross imprints the stamp o f the empire on any theol­ o g y that issues f r o m it.

54. See Chrysostom, Horn. Eph. 5.2.16; Jerome (ca. 345-420 CE), Comm. Eph. 2.4.8; and Epiphanius, Artcoratas 92, in Edwards, ed., Galatians, 141,163,250. The connections between these passages would seem to be strengthened by the fact that Eph 2:15-16 yields the only explicit mention of the cross in this letter. 55. Oakes,"Gods Sovereignty," 133-35. 56. I am indebted to Craig Evans for pressing me to think further on this point. 57. Oakes,"Gods Sovereignty," 134,136, citing Isa 45. 58. Lemcio, "Gospels," 133. 59. I see little reason why they should not be equivalent in this corpus; the canonical Gospels certainly attest an atonement theology that draws more broadly from Christ's incarnation, not just from his death. I appreciate Warren Carter s input on this point.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

212

COLOSSIANS: RULERS DISARMED The imperial c o n t e x t o f C o l o s s i a n s has already received definitive and imaginative t r e a t m e n t in B r i a n Walsh and Sylvia K e e s m a a t s Remixed.

Colossians

Here, I h o p e o n l y to fill in a few o f the places where they have

left an idea sketched out, particularly in two places where the empire c o m e s into close c o n t a c t with P a u l s statements o n the atonement: the christological h y m n o f C o l 1 : 1 5 - 2 0 , and the t r i u m p h i m a g e r y o f C o l 2:14-15.

He Is the Image;

Peace

through

the Blood

of His

Cross

Like Phil 2 : 6 - 1 1 , a p o r t i o n o f the s e c o n d chapter o f C o l o s s i a n s is widely held to b e an adaptation o f an early christological confessional state­ m e n t , t h o u g h its apparent l a c k o f p o e t i c structure has often kept it from b e i n g regarded as a proper h y m n ; even as formulaic prose, its p r o c l a m a ­ tion clearly consists o f the s u p r e m a c y o f Christ's person ( l : 1 5 - 1 8 a ) and 60

his w o r k ( 1 8 b - 2 0 ) in b o t h c o s m i c and ecclesiological c o n t e x t s . Walsh and K e e s m a a t m a i n t a i n that the passage is poetic, and treat it a c c o r d ­ 4

ingly. T h e y offer a t a r g u m ( a n extended translation and expansion that attempts to read the world t h r o u g h the eyes o f the text, allowing the Scripture to resonate with and confront o u r changing cultural reality") that brings out a n u m b e r o f the p o r t i o n s implicit emphases: conflict b e ­ tween images, s u p r e m a c y and sovereignty, and reconciliation b y grace through the c r o s s .

61

T h o u g h the t a r g u m and the authors' explanatory

c o m m e n t s are t o o lengthy to reproduce here, these emphases reward further e x a m i n a t i o n pertaining to R o m e and the cross. First, that Christ is identified as "the image (eikon)

o f the invisible

G o d " is highly significant for Paul—and for Walsh and Keesmaat, w h o contrast the "image-saturated" world o f imagination-capturing logos (true o f b o t h R o m e , with its sustaining myth o f pax Romana,

and the

m o d e r n c o r p o r a t e world's advertising m y t h s ) with Christ, "the source 60. Longenecker, New Wine, 13, 16-17, classifying the passage as a homologia (a "formulaic confessional portion"). Oakess analysis of Philippians' main argument, above, is remarkably similar, with the addition of the imperial context. 61. Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 85-89. The targum is certainly extended and expanded, perhaps to the point of becoming a full-blown midrash (as Michael Knowles has pointed out to me). Some 110 words in the Greek and 128 in English (NRSV) fill three and a half pages of poetry in Colossians Remixed. Attempting to "read the world through the eyes of the text" remains problematic as a model, though it is explained previously by the authors.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

o f a liberated i m a g i n a t i o n / a subversion o f t h e empire."

62

213

Christ's role as

God's i m a g e - b e a r e r is never far r e m o v e d from his atoning work, as it is t h e divine image-representative h i m s e l f w h o is h u n g o n a cross (and resurrected), t h u s setting a pattern for all w h o would follow in his image. To use t h e G r e e k t e r m to adapt the English truism: t h e eikon far from t h e t r e e .

doesn't fall

63

S e c o n d , C h r i s t is supreme, o r sovereign; h e is "before all things, and in h i m all things h o l d together" ( C o l 1:17). All t h e p o w e r and author­ ity o f "the institutionalized p o w e r structures," w h e t h e r civil, e c o n o m i c , social, o r religious, is "derived at best/parasitic at worst."

64

T h e crucified

lord is revealed as supreme—even over Wink's "spirit o f empire." Third, this revelation o c c u r s t h r o u g h the crucifixion a n d resur­ rection, events that are t h e m e a n s o f reconciliation: "through h i m G o d was pleased t o r e c o n c i l e to h i m s e l f all things, w h e t h e r o n earth o r in heaven, b y m a k i n g p e a c e t h r o u g h t h e b l o o d o f his cross" ( C o l 1 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) . "It all happens o n a cross . . . at a state e x e c u t i o n . . . at the h a n d s o f t h e 65

e m p i r e that has captured o u r imagination." T h e authors underscore t h e s a m e p h e n o m e n o n we have seen at w o r k in the o t h e r letters surveyed so far: t h e ( R o m a n ) cross governs Paul's interpretation o f a t o n e m e n t and empire.

Triumphing In his n e x t chapter, Paul r e t u r n s

66

over

Them

to a rare but familiar t h e m e . Colossians

2 : 1 4 - 1 5 , m e n t i o n e d above in t h e c o n t e x t o f Paul's t r i u m p h imagery, tells the reader that with the obstacles o f t h e "written c o d e " and past tres62. Ibid., 85-86, and (for the sustaining myths of empires ancient and modern) 52, 61-63. 63. With apologies for being a bit too cute, and especially to those who have little tolerance for Greek-English puns. 64. Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 86. 65. Ibid., 88-89. The lines that follow reveal a targumic intertextuality with Phil 2:6-11: "it all happens through blood/not through a power grab by the sovereign one." 66. Reading canonically here, I do take seriously Ben Witheringtons caution as he introduces 1 Timothy: he warns that canonical readings of Pauline texts tend to "overread shorter documents on the basis of longer, more prominent ones," as when Romans is used as a guide and a "key measuring rod of Paulinicity." He recommends treating documents independently before moving to "intertextual, interrelational and canonical sorts of questions," but fails to see how difficult this task can be when intra-canonical influence is part of the point of a study, as I believe it is here. See Witherington, Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 169 n. 4.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

214

passes removed, even nailed to the cross, Christ "disarmed t h e rulers and authorities and m a d e a public e x a m p l e o f t h e m , t r i u m p h i n g over t h e m in it." Kreitzer theorizes that Paul owes his image here to Nero's victory over Tiridates in 6 3 C E , as it would have b e e n celebrated in t r i u m p h in Rome.

6 7

But to evoke an i m a g e is n o t to agree with its message. Kreitzer

says elsewhere that "the R o m a n c o n c e p t o f apotheosis m o v e d a m a n from earth toward heaven, w h e r e a s the Christian c o n c e p t o f i n c a r n a ­ tion m o v e d G o d from heaven toward earth, but the two are similar in that they b o t h deal with t h e relationship between the h u m a n and the divine";

68

here we must disagree. W h e r e the R o m a n t r i u m p h exalted a

m a n at t h e height o f his m i l i t a r y p o w e r w h o would s o o n b e (or had al­ ready b e e n ) divinized, P a u l s portrayal o f Christ's t r i u m p h contains an arc exactly opposite, similar n o t to apotheosis but to the pattern glimpsed in Philippians and Ephesians. C h r i s t disarms the rulers and authorities at his m o m e n t o f greatest weakness; he m a k e s "a public example o f t h e m " (lit. "exposed t h e m with openness," edeigmatisen

en parresid)

when he

was h i m s e l f exposed; and he t r i u m p h s over t h e m when it s e e m s t h e o t h e r way around. But again, we must ask: w h o are t h e "rulers and authorities"? Walsh and K e e s m a a t are quite clear o n their interpretation o f t h e verse: the d i s a r m a m e n t was an exercise o f Christ's "sovereignty, his rule over the empire. This rule was established o n t h e cross and c o n f i r m e d in the res­ urrection. R o m e c o u l d n o t keep Jesus in a grave sealed b y the empire."

69

Again, the view o f the powers I a m arguing for here—including the rulers (archas)

and authorities (exousias),

the first two groups m e n t i o n e d in the

list o f E p h 6 : 1 2 — i s intended to n u a n c e and c o m p l e m e n t o t h e r models. The powers were n o t necessarily exclusively

imperial in nature. But given

the c o n n e c t i o n s here in C o l o s s i a n s b e t w e e n image, supremacy, triumph, and cross, it would s e e m that Paul included the imperial authorities as o p p o n e n t s d i s a r m e d b y C h r i s t — e v e n i f his own life and death indicated otherwise.

67. Kreitzer, Striking New Images, 123-25. 68. Ibid., 97-98. 69. Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 154-55.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

215

1 AND 2 THESSALONIANS: "PEACE AND SECURITY" A n u m b e r o f features relevant t o imperial c o n t e x t s c a n b e briefly n o t e d in t h e Thessalonian c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . T h e m e m b e r s o f P a u l s c o n g r e g a ­ t i o n have reportedly t u r n e d away from idols "to serve a living and true G o d " (1 Thess 1:9), o n e o f several b a r b s f r o m P a u l s letters directed at t h e practice; here, idol worship serves to highlight positive characteristics o f P a u l s divine patron, w h o (unlike t h e o t h e r p a t r o n gods) is b o t h living (zonti)

70

a n d t r u e (alethino).

G o d is also identified as t h e o n e w h o calls

t h e T h e s s a l o n i a n s " i n t o his o w n k i n g d o m [basileian] 2 : 1 2 ) . Basileia

a n d glory" (1 Thess

appears infrequently in Paul; c u s t o m a r i l y rendered

dom, it c a n b e b e t t e r translated as dominion,

king-

m e a n i n g b o t h the governing

p o w e r a n d t h e r e a l m itself—"the place in w h i c h G o d s rule is exercised,"

71

a n d as such, an alternative to t h e k i n g d o m o r empire o f Caesar. T h e r e is also s o m e indication that t h e p e r s e c u t i o n in w h i c h t h e Thessalonian c h u r c h is suffering (1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:5) has a G r e c o - R o m a n , rather t h a n Jewish, source. T h e strongest l o c u s o f imperial content, however, lies in 1 Thess 4 : 1 3 - 1 8 , with a related clause a few verses later, in 5:3.

Meeting

the Lord

at His Arrival:

Paul renders t h e parousia—the ence, o r arrival)

Loaded

Political

Terms

" c o m i n g (alternative translation

pres­

o f t h e L o r d " in 4 : 1 5 — i n imperial key, in clear imitation

o f t h e visitation o f t h e e m p e r o r o r a n o t h e r such royal guest. W i t h his congregants w o r r y i n g about t h e fate o f t h o s e a m o n g their n u m b e r w h o have died, Paul reassures t h e m : " F o r t h e L o r d himself, with a c r y o f c o m ­ m a n d , with the a r c h a n g e l s call and with the s o u n d o f G o d s t r u m p e t , will d e s c e n d f r o m heaven, a n d t h e dead in Christ will rise first," before t h o s e still living also go out to m e e t h i m ( 4 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . J o h n C r o s s a n a n d J o n a t h a n R e e d p r o p o s e that t h e parousia,

so often a m a i n s t a y o f m i l l e n ­

nial t h o u g h t in t h e m o d e r n c h u r c h , is an imperial event that Paul adapts as a metaphor.

70. The most commonly referenced passage on idols is 1 Cor 8; the dual adjectives parallel "blessed and only" as descriptors for Christ in 1 Tim 6:15. "Living" is itself a distinctive of 1 Tim (3:15; 4:10). 71. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 107-108. Kingdom terminology is of course more common to the Synoptic Gospels; but for a proposal that John's language, while less prone to explicit kingdom references, is more "basileic" than many scholars will admit, see Anderson, Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, 52-54.

216

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

A ruler m a k i n g a formal u r b a n visitation to Thessalonica, as in m a n y ancient cities, would pass t h e t o m b s and m a u s o l e u m s o f t h e outly­ ing c e m e t e r i e s before entering t h e city proper, m e e t i n g "first t h e elite 72

dead before any m e e t i n g with t h e elite living." T h e m e t a p h o r is indeed eschatological, as Paul anticipates t h e final visitation that will vindicate his message a n d t h e suffering o f his readers. But as the e m p e r o r r e m a i n e d present b e t w e e n visits (through c o i n s , statues, and o t h e r images), Paul argues that C h r i s t is already present with the Thessalonians, even when he is physically a b s e n t .

73

T h e confident expectation

o f God-in-Christ's

final state-visit was t h e "state" in w h i c h Paul asked t h e believers to live. But what d o e s it m e a n for Paul to use this m e t a p h o r ? Is Christ's vis­ itation to resemble, supersede, o r replace the visitation o f the e m p e r o r ?

74

In b o r r o w i n g from imperial language here and elsewhere, Paul is using "heavily loaded political terms": Karl D o n f r i e d identifies parousia, (lord) and apantesis

kyrios

(the "meeting" Paul refers to in 1 Thess 4 : 1 7 , c o n ­

n o t i n g "the a c t i o n s o f t h e greeting c o m m i t t e e as it goes forth from the city to escort t h e royal p e r s o n o r dignitary into the city for his official visit") as language b e l o n g i n g to the imperial c o u r t .

75

To use such terms

entailed risk for b o t h author a n d recipients. W h e n Paul transfers

political

language from C a e s a r to Jesus, w h o in his view is "the only G o d w h o ever walked t h e earth," h e m a k e s a political statement, n o t just a theological one: in this emperor-friendly, pluralistic city w h o s e status as a "free city" was precarious, to u n d e r m i n e C a e s a r was to threaten t h e hierarchical

72 Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 168-69. 73. Ibid., 170-71; thus the authors translate parousia as "return," hoping to avoid "translations for parousia that in any way imply a prior absence" (171). Oakes, "Gods Sovereignty," 138-39, offers a similar view of visitation-hope in Philippi:"The Christians are like members of a colony such as Philippi, defended from a distance by the ruler of the city to which they ultimately belong . . . [they] have a better citizenship than that of Rome, defended by a stronger saviour than that of Rome." Witherington, Thessalonians, xv, would likely dispute this comparison, as he insists that the Thessalonian audience is not composed of colonials as those of Philippi and Corinth would have been; instead, he looks for parallels in John of Patmoss situation, writing to the heavily pressured and persecuted. 74. Shrewd questions from Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 171, who point to the parousia as both consolation and confrontation. 75. Donfried, "Cults of Thessalonica," 34; the apantesis description is Witheringtons {Thessalonians, 138), who earlier notes the use of parousia for the visitation of a deity, coming in deliverance (91).

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

217

n e t w o r k o f inter-city patronage, t o arouse fears o f imperial censure a n d the end o f benefaction.

76

" T h e c o s t o f 'freedom' a n d t h e P a x R o m a n a in one's city was un­ swerving loyalty t o the emperor," W i t h e r i n g t o n o b s e r v e s .

77

H e rightly

emphasizes "freedom" as a c o m p o n e n t o f Paul's r h e t o r i c in this letter, for e m p i r e a n d t h e ability t o s p e a k freely do n o t coexist easily. Paul re­ p o r t s earlier that despite undeservedly p o o r t r e a t m e n t in Philippi a n d c o n t i n u i n g opposition in Thessalonica, h e and his c o w o r k e r s still "had courage in o u r G o d t o declare to y o u t h e gospel" (1 Thess 2 : 2 ) . T h e t e r m translated "had courage" is drawn from parresia,

w h i c h in d e m o c r a t i c

G r e e c e " m e a n t 'freedom o f speech.' Paul treats his converts a n d c o n ­ gregations as p e r s o n s and places where free s p e e c h is appropriate a n d in order."

78

I n his later letter t o t h e Colossians, Paul w o u l d provide a

christological foundation for this liberty o f parresia:

t h e s a m e w o r d is

t h e "openness" with w h i c h C h r i s t "exposed" t h e rulers a n d authorities in C o l 2 : 1 5 . W h e t h e r Paul m a k e s this c o n n e c t i o n in this earlier letter can b e debated; certainly t h e opposition h e m e n t i o n s here would have highlighted t h e lack o f real freedom a m o n g t h e imperial cities where h e lived a n d wrote.

Pax et

Securitas

S h o r t l y after Paul's heavy c o - o p t i n g o f imperial language in 1 T h e s salonians 4 , h e elaborates o n t h e t i m i n g o f t h e e x p e c t e d visitation o f C h r i s t t h e deliverer: " F o r y o u yourselves k n o w v e r y well that t h e day o f t h e L o r d will c o m e like a t h i e f in t h e night. W h e n t h e y s a y / T h e r e is p e a c e a n d security,' t h e n sudden destruction will c o m e u p o n t h e m " (1 Thess 5 : 2 - 3 a ) . T h e saying o f "peace and security" has proven to b e a difficult issue—as has t h e identity o f t h o s e saying it. As h e indicated regarding Paul's use o f "kingdom" above, Charles W a n a m a k e r says that this state­ m e n t is "not typical o f Paul"; t h e c o n c e p t o f the "false c r y o f peace" is o n e h e attributes n o t t o apocalyptic thought (despite t h e destructive threats in 5:3) but t o the prophetic t r a d i t i o n .

79

W i t h e r i n g t o n agrees that there

are O l d T e s t a m e n t prophetic e c h o e s here, but also m a r k s t h e inscrip-

76. Witherington, Thessalonians, 3,6-7,40. 77. Ibid., 7. 78. Ibid., 77, esp. n. 68. 79. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 180.

218

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

tions "all over the empire" attributing the arrival o f pax et eirene

and asphaleia—to

securitas—or

R o m e and the e m p e r o r Augustus; this verse,

then, represents P a u l s critique o f the slogans o f the pax

80

Romana.

H o w penetrating is this critique m e a n t to be? Donf r i ed describes it as a "frontal" o r "direct attack," "an assault" o n Pax et Securitas

as an i m ­

perial p r o g r a m ; h e b o r r o w s from W. H. C. F r e n d s a c c o u n t o f P a u l s m o ­ tive as o n e o f startling bitterness.

81

Neil Elliott c o n c u r s that P a u l s intent

is subversive, but sees h i m l a m p o o n i n g the Augustan propaganda with an ironic inversion: a similar d y n a m i c is at work in the t r i u m p h o f 2 C o r 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 , where Paul is publicly a humiliated captive, and yet also a living manifestation o f G o d s power.

82

P a u l s actual motive m a y b e difficult to

discern, but his strategy r e m a i n s effective: h e marshals O l d Testament prophetic traditions to rebuff t h e empire s powerful propaganda, m a k i n g an ironic defensive m o v e , rather t h a n a scalding attack. Paul c o m e s to p a r r y Caesar, n o t to braise h i m . I provide a b r i e f e x a m p l e b y returning to the ideology o f divine warfare, reviewed above as relevant to Ephesians. Ephesians 4:8 appro­ priates P s a l m 6 8 ; here I appeal to a related text, Psalm 2 9 . D o m i n a t e d b y t h e praises ascribed to G o d , largely for the raw power o f G o d s voice, the p s a l m concludes ( 2 9 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , " T h e LORD sits e n t h r o n e d over the flood; the L O R D sits e n t h r o n e d as king for ever. M a y the LORD give strength to his people! M a y the L O R D bless his people with peace!" Carroll Stuhlmueller finds that even this early psalm, in its apparent m i m i c r y o f other an­ cient N e a r - E a s t e r n m y t h s (such as B a a l s position as s t o r m - g o d ) , " a c t u ­ ally parodies Baal worship, since power and e n t h r o n e m e n t are granted exclusively to Yahweh "

8 3

C i r c u m s c r i b i n g the power o f the (apparently)

u n t a m e d s t o r m is an inclusio peace

o f G o d s strength

(Ps 2 9 : 1 , l l ) ,

8 4

resulting in

for his people. As Patrick M i l l e r c o m m e n t s o n the p s a l m s theologi­

cal and political p o l e m i c , "in C a n a a n i t e mythology, Baal was e n t h r o n e d over the c o n q u e r e d flood o r primordial waters o f chaos. Here is affirmed

80. Witherington, Thessalonians, 146-47; the Thessalonian statue of Augustus (p. 5) may have inspired this critique. Alert linguists will notice that the English word asphalt can be traced to asphaleia—perhaps paving the way to peace and security? 81. Donfried, "Cults of Thessalonica," 34, 43; Donfried, "Assembly of the Thessalonians," 144. Also see Frend, Martyrdom, 96. 82. Elliott, "Strategies of Resistance," 119. 83. Stuhlmueller, "Psalms," 405. 84. Ibid.

L O W E — "This Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

219

the universal kingship o f t h e L o r d , w h o dethrones all o t h e r powers a n d is t h e o n l y o n e able t o grant security

and

85

peace!'

I do n o t insist that 1 Thess 5:3 contains any explicit allusions to P s a l m 2 9 , t h o u g h the w o r d pairs (strength a n d peace; p e a c e a n d s e c u ­ rity) are tempting; t h e Thessalonian c o r r e s p o n d e n c e does n o t even m e r i t an essay in a recent v o l u m e devoted t o hearing the p s a l m s in the N e w Testament, n o r is P s a l m 2 9 itself c o n s i d e r e d at any point in t h e collective 86

s u r v e y . 1 m e r e l y suggest that this is t h e type o f text, o r m o r e broadly t h e type o f ideology, that Paul m i g h t have h a d in m i n d w h e n h e attempted to c o u n t e r t h e imperial p r o g r a m o f p e a c e a n d security. This tentative proposal is further strengthened b y the t h e o p h a n i c quality o f P a u l s language t h r o u g h o u t 1 Thessalonians 4 - 5 a n d into 2 Thessalonians l ,

8 7

a n d b y what I h o p e are c o n v i n c i n g parallels in the language o f d e t h r o n ­ ing o p p o s i n g powers. A strong precedent also exists for defending t h e appropriation o f P s a l m 2 9 elsewhere in the N e w Testament. C l i n t o n M c C a n n has argued c o n v i n c i n g l y that a n o t h e r t h e o p h a n i c event, t h e angelic p r o c l a m a t i o n o f J e s u s ' b i r t h in Luke 2 : 8 - 1 2 , is n o t a direct quota­ t i o n but is "certainly r e m i n i s c e n t " o f the e n t h r o n e m e n t p s a l m ,

88

an e c h o

m a d e m o r e forceful here b y shared context: Luke 2 a n d 1 Thessalonians 4 - 5 b o t h a n n o u n c e the i m p e n d i n g arrival o f a king w h o will rival Caesar. At t h e v e r y least, t h e n , this psalm's ideological m i n d s e t is at m o s t , it is in s o m e way appropriated.

appropriate;

As Paul's critique is so closely

related to t h e c o - o p t e d imperial language h e employs to describe t h e c o m i n g visitation o f Christ, the crucified a n d resurrected deliverer, t h e dual ideological b a c k g r o u n d is perhaps w o r t h y o f further study.

85. Miller, "Psalms," 825, italics mine. 86. Moyise and Menken, Psalms in the New Testament, mentioned above in discus­ sion of Philippians. 87. Witherington, Thessalonians, 141, echoing Mic 1:3 ("the LORD is coming out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth") in 1 Thess 4:16, a high point of both eschatological and court language; and 195, where Witherington cites parallels to Acts 7:30, Ps 104:4, and increasingly, Isa 2, 29, 30, 44, and 66. 88. McCann, Theological Introduction to Psalms, 164. With an allusion or at least a preservation of "the same movement as in Psalm 29," McCann continues, Luke "makes a powerful theological affirmation. God is being enthroned in the birth of Jesus!" The same view of Jesus as a fulfillment of the Psalter s core theology can be applied here to the parousia, remembering whose image of visiting royalty is being appropriated.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

TITUS A N D 1 A N D 2 TIMOTHY: SAVIOR, KING, DESPOT Here we alter the c a n o n i c a l order slightly, in order to place T i t u s — t h e earliest o f P a u l s pastoral letters, a n d t h e least likely to b e pseudepigraphic—at the forefront,

89

so as to begin an emphasis o n the titles that appear

in the Pastoral c o r r e s p o n d e n c e .

Savior T h e first few lines o f the letter reflect a change from P a u l s usual opening, with relevance for the imperial environment: the titles n o r m a l l y c o m ­ m o n to P a u l s greetings are absent (with the exception o f Christ)

until the

e n d o f 1:3, where G o d is referred to as Savior, a title also ascribed to Jesus in 1:4. T h e s a m e title (soter,

soteros)

appears six t i m e s in T i t u s — m o r e

than any o t h e r Pauline letter, and a c c o u n t i n g for o n e in every four uses o f the word in the entire N e w Testament—while the c u s t o m a r y title for Jesus, lord

(kyrios),

is never used. W i t h e r i n g t o n finds extensive use o f

a language o f soteriology in the Pastorals, while it is avoided in earlier Paulines except t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y latest, Philippians (as in 3 : 2 0 , m e n ­ t i o n e d above: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are e x p e c t i n g a Savior, the L o r d Jesus C h r i s t " ) .

90

As with t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f the divine deliverer s visitation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, soter

is a c o m m o n descriptor for a g o d w h o rescues,

heals, or otherwise intervenes for those w h o require help: Zeus and A r t e m i s were b o t h t e r m e d this way, as were s o m e h u m a n benefactors, and the L X X offers further examples, especially c o m m o n a m o n g the psalms.

91

W i t h e r i n g t o n s j u d g m e n t that soteriological language is "dou-

89. Following Witherington, Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 86: Titus, ca. 64-65 CE, is most likely genuine, for who but Paul would send a mission letter to Crete . 7

90. Witherington (Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 103-5) wonders if the compara­ tive lack of savior-language in 2 Timothy "reflects the more dangerous situation and Roman setting of that letter" (103 n. 46). A question for Witherington in response might be this: should modern readers draw the same conclusion of the earlier Paulines that largely avoid such soteriological terms? Note, too, that even Phil 3:20 supports its soter reference with the more common kyrios. 91. Witherington, Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 102-5. He attributes the use of "more Hellenistic language" of gods and epiphanies to Luke, as Pauls influential amanu­ ensis: the "hand and diction" in Titus and 1 Timothy are Lukes, though the voice is Pauls (102). Given such a broad basis for a language of soteriological intervention, one wishes Witherington would explore further the overlap with terms of patronage (which might well serve as a vehicle for much soteriological thought in Roman contexts), as he begins to do when God is spoken of as a benefactor (156, on Titus 3:4).

L O W E — "This Was Not an Ordinary bly a p p r o p r i a t e

>92

Death"

b e c a u s e o f its dual b a c k g r o u n d c o u l d b e taken further

still: it is doubly appropriated

w h e n used to refer to Christ. T h e initial

reference to C h r i s t as soter finds fullest ( a n d perhaps m o s t Trinitarian) expression here: But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7) A n u m b e r o f Pauline e m p h a s e s are discernible here: justification b y grace, t h e questionable righteousness o f works, the significance o f b a p ­ t i s m , a n d t h e Spirit s related role. M o s t relevant to empire a n d a t o n e m e n t are two points. First, what t h e N R S V renders "loving kindness" is literally philanthropia,

7

love to/for h u m a n s (perhaps humankindness .).

This t e r m

93

draws from t h e language o f R o m a n p a t r o n a g e — a n d is thus entirely appropriate ( a n d w o r t h appropriating!) to savior-language as well. This first p o i n t leads to the s e c o n d : b o t h G o d a n d Jesus C h r i s t are called our savior

here, contextualizing G o d s b e n e f a c t i o n a n d r e m i n d i n g the reader

that G o d s patronage a n d intervention are n o t without horrific cost. T h o u g h it is n o t m e n t i o n e d explicitly, t h e phrase through Jesus Christ Savior,

our

followed closely b y justification, is a quiet reference to the cross.

King P a u l s doxological statement early in 1 T i m o t h y ( 1 : 1 7 ) presents a n o t h e r unusual descriptive title: "the K i n g o f t h e ages, i m m o r t a l [aphtharto,

lit.

"incorruptible"], invisible, the o n l y God." G e o r g e K n i g h t points out that this is n o t a frequent t e r m for G o d in the N e w T e s t a m e n t ,

94

especially in

Paul. Yet it is followed n e a r t h e e n d o f t h e letter with t h e massive h o n ­ orific, "the blessed a n d only Sovereign, t h e K i n g o f kings a n d L o r d o f lords" (1 T i m 6:15, a n d o n into v. 1 6 ) ; a n d in even closer proximity, Paul urges his reader(s) to pray for, intercede o n b e h a l f of, a n d even express 92. Ibid., 104. 93. As has already been noted: ibid., 156. 94. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 104. Compare also discussion of basileia in 1 Thess 2:12, above, with this reference and with the phrase "his [heavenly] kingdom" in 2 Tim 4:1 and 4:18.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

thanksgiving (!) for "kings a n d all w h o are in high positions, so that we m a y lead a quiet a n d peaceable life in all godliness and dignity" (1 T i m 2 : 1 - 2 , with the e n d o r s e m e n t o f " G o d o u r Savior" a n d C h r i s t Jesus, the self-giving r a n s o m , in w . 3 - 6 ) . W h i l e this would s e e m to lead to u n d u e degrees o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the empire, Knight cautions that R o m e did provide "a m e a s u r e o f p e a c e a n d tranquility" for early Christian ministry, citing evidence from A c t s and the P r i s o n Epistles. "Perhaps," he c o n t i n ues,"Paul has in m i n d the words o f Jer. 2 9 : 7 ( L X X 3 6 : 7 ) : ' S e e k the welfare o f the city w h e r e I have sent you into exile . . "

> 9 5

G o d s role as king has

an O l d T e s t a m e n t precedent that evidently informs his people s intended interaction with o t h e r (rival) kings.

Despot C a r r y i n g forward a m e a s u r e o f 1 T i m o t h y s emphasis o n divine king­ ship, 2 T i m 2:3 has T i m o t h y a n d Paul serving as soldiers u n d e r Christ's c o m m a n d ; yet in e n d u r i n g their suffering, they have the p r o m i s e that t h e y will "also reign with h i m " ( 2 : 1 2 ) . A m o n g its other titles, however, t h e letter also carries o n e designation that m a y trouble m o d e r n eyes. In t h e reference in 2:21 to believers as vessels "useful to the o w n e r o f the house, ready for every g o o d work," the h o u s e - o w n e r ( T N I V : "the M a s t e r " ) is a t e r m b o r r o w e d from G r e c o - R o m a n d o m e s t i c life: despote, the s o u r c e o f the English word despot.

or

despotes,

N o r m a l l y conveying the status

o f lord o r master, as over slaves (1 T i m 6:12; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2 : 1 8 ) , the t e r m is also used to describe authority, as with the title "Sovereign L o r d " with references to b o t h G o d and Jesus C h r i s t .

96

Similar issues o f transla­

tion arise in the b e n e d i c t i o n o f 1 T i m 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 : only here in the N e w T e s t a m e n t is G o d called dynastes,

"Sovereign," a t e r m n o r m a l l y used to

refer to h u m a n rulers in Luke a n d Acts, but used here for a counterrhetorical f u n c t i o n .

97

Christ's resurrection remains s y n o n y m o u s with

P a u l s gospel, for w h i c h h e suffers "hardship, even to the point o f b e i n g

95. Ibid., 117, citing Phil 1:12-13, Pauls report on the gospels influence among the imperial guard. Though Paul does see this as providential, it was only after being impris­ oned that he apparently learned to give thanks for this. 96. Used to refer to God: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev 6:10; to Christ: 2 Pet 2:1; Jude 4. Despite semantic shifts, it remains difficult for modern Christians to use the same word to describe Christ that has been used to describe modern dictators. 97. See Witherington, Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 294-98.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary c h a i n e d like a c r i m i n a l " ( 2 T i m 2 : 9 ) .

98

Death"

B u t serious risk is involved w h e n

language n o r m a l l y reserved for h u m a n masters and rulers is b o r r o w e d to s p e a k o f G o d a n d o f Christ. C o u n t e r - r h e t o r i c is o n l y effective w h e n it r e m a i n s distinctive f r o m b o t h its sources and its opposition.

PHILEMON: A PRISONER OF CHRIST The o t h e r P r i s o n Epistles, along with p o r t i o n s o f the Pastorals, share with P a u l s letter to P h i l e m o n t h e knowledge o f i m p r i s o n e d suffering: here Paul calls h i m s e l f b o t h an "old m a n " a n d "a p r i s o n e r o f C h r i s t Jesus" ( P h l m 9 ) . It is f r o m this b a c k g r o u n d that Paul m a k e s his "appeal o n t h e basis o f love," during his " i m p r i s o n m e n t for the gospel" ( P h l m 9 - 1 0 , 1 3 ) . W h a t is t h e nature o f his appeal? His first goal is for P h i l e m o n to forgive his runaway slave O n e s i m u s ; his s e c o n d , m o r e subtle o b j e c ­ tive is t h e slaves m a n u m i s s i o n . Paul places a "roundabout" request for O n e s i m u s ' f r e e d o m — a n d t h e freedom that Christ a c c o m p l i s h e s for t h e early C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y — w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f the D e u t e r o n o m i c tradition, a n d m o r e specifically t h e Jubilee narrative o f liberation f r o m captivity a n d slavery. "It is n o wonder, then," K e e s m a a t says, "that in the letter to P h i l e m o n Paul calls for t h e fundamental shape o f that story t o 99

b e reflected in t h e life o f the early church," including even t h e c o m m o n h o u s e h o l d relationships o f m a s t e r a n d slave—relationships n o w m a d e uncommon

b y a shared b o n d o f o b e d i e n c e ( P h l m 2 1 ) to Christ.

B e y o n d K e e s m a a t s attention to the w o r k C h r i s t has p e r f o r m e d a n d its place within t h e narratives o f Israel a n d the early c h u r c h , c a n anything m o r e about P h i l e m o n b e said, specific to empire a n d a t o n e m e n t ? T h e r e is t h e b a s i c o b s e r v a t i o n to b e m a d e again: P a u l s o w n captivity is likely enforced b y R o m e . W a l s h a n d K e e s m a a t explore P a u l s advice t h r o u g h a creative exercise, crafting a letter f r o m O n e s i m u s t o Paul that reports o n t h e reception o f the letters to t h e C o l o s s i a n s and P h i l e m o n , a n d arguing in the process for a b r o a d e r "ethic o f liberation," i n f o r m e d b y Christ's death o n t h e c r o s s .

100

98. Compare Pauls rejoinder in the same verse ("But the word of God is not chained") to Phil 1:13; 3:10-11. 99. Keesmaat, "In the Face of Empire," 209. 100. Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 201-19; Jesus is "the One who came to bring salvation to Israel and bring Gods new kingdom of peace to both Israel and the whole world through his death on the cross and his rising from the dead" (205).

223

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

224

But a n o t h e r facet o f the master-slave d y n a m i c reveals j u s t h o w disruptive, h o w truly subversive, such an ethic would have b e e n . A l b e r t Harrill s e x a m i n a t i o n o f R o m e s hierarchical society shows that a alized

person­

understanding o f power was integral to the empire: the relative

qualities o f h o n o r (dignitas)

and m a s t e r y (auctoritas)

that distinguished

the m a s t e r from his slave were the s a m e traits that sustained the role and g o v e r n a n c e o f the emperor, as when Augustus was "proclaimed the ultimate guarantor (auctor) war." pax

101

o f p e a c e and stability after decades o f civil

That is, the e m p i r e s societal structure and the integrity o f the

Romana

itself were subject to the s a m e rules as m a s t e r and slave:

a distinctively R o m a n ideology o f m a s t e r y .

102

To p r o c l a i m a crucified

lord instead o f Caesar, and to use this claim as the analogical basis for manumission,

103

was to disrupt the proper channels o f power. N o w o n ­

der Paul left his request implicit! I f his letter had fallen into the w r o n g hands, his analogies alone could have caused further imperial entangle­ m e n t s for Paul and for Philemon's household.

THE CRUCIFORM RUBRIC M i c h a e l G o r m a n asserts that for Paul, "the death o f Christ is n o t o n l y revelatory, representative, and redemptive . . . but also paradigmatic. T h e essence o f believing existence is c o n f o r m i t y to the crucified Christ, o r cruciformity," a t e r m G o r m a n identifies with the "law o f Christ" ( G a l 6:2; 1 C o r 9 : 2 1 ) , o r the "narrative pattern o f the crucified M e s s i a h . "

104

I believe G o r m a n is o n target when he refers to Christ's death as para­ digmatic, and comprehensively so; the questions I have attempted to address here are perhaps m o r e specific, in asking how the c r u c i f o r m paradigm works when applied to the interpretation and application o f Scripture and to the annexation o f R o m a n imperial i m a g e r y .

105

1 would

101. Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, esp. 23. 102. Ibid., 25-26. 103. I thank David Huctwith and the other participants in Craig Evans's course "Christian Origins and the Roman Empire," for helping me to clarify this analogy dur­ ing discussion on June 1,2007, leading up to the Colloquium. 104. Gorman, Apostle, 140-41, references several passages used here including the Phil 2 Christ-hymn, but employs Gal 3:13—which I have argued is literally crucial to Paul's cruciform Scripture reading—as a text for the promise of the Spirit. 105. "Annexation" is admittedly a strong word, but accurate nonetheless. One could speculate that Paul lost little sleep over arrogating terminology that belonged to an arrogating empire.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

225

argue that that t h e cross shapes a rubric for P a u l s exegesis o f b o t h text a n d culture, and that t h e result is a dialectic

rubric, following in part

from examples p r o p o s e d b y Walter B r u e g g e m a n n for studying the O l d Testament. Evaluating what h e refers to as the core and counter

testimony

in t h e O l d Testament, B r u e g g e m a n n suggests three dialectic pairs enant

a n d exile; hymn and lament;

for further e x p l o r a t i o n . tuted empire

106

a n d presence

and theodicy)

(cov­

as rubrics

B r u e g g e m a n n c o u l d just as easily have substi­

for exile, rendering t h e first pair as covenant

a n d empire,

as

n e a r b y empires were often t h e forces that shaped and enforced Israels exilic e x p e r i e n c e s .

107

Rome's role in shaping the m i n o r Pauline epistles—and t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t as a whole—is j u s t as forceful, but often implicit. T h o u g h first-century Palestinian Jews and Christians were t e c h n i c a l l y n o lon­ ger living in exile, their land and their lives b e l o n g e d to R o m e ; Paul's developing t h e o l o g y o f the a t o n e m e n t h a d t o take t h e empire's c o n t r o l into a c c o u n t . W h e r e B r u e g g e m a n n has seen the O l d T e s t a m e n t prophets take a d r a m a t i c stand against t h e "mythic claims o f the empire," exposing its gods as powerless and exalting " Y H W H the sovereign o n e " in their place,

108

Paul has C h r i s t disarming "the rulers and authorities" to m a k e "a

public e x a m p l e o f t h e m , t r i u m p h i n g over t h e m " in the cross ( C o l 2 : 1 5 ) , a s c a n d a l o u s but subtle message m e a n t only for t h o s e with eyes to read— a n d d e c o d e . Paul b o r r o w s f r o m Rome's b a n k s o f words and images, but rarely ends up in debt to t h e m , in part b e c a u s e h e finds a n o t h e r lending s o u r c e in t h e traditions o f the O l d Testament; h e c a n apply ideologies o f divine warfare and s u p r e m a c y to defend against Rome's ideologies o f p o w e r a n d mastery. Even crucifixion, used b y R o m e to c o m m u n i c a t e t h e p r i c e o f dissent, c a n b e appropriated from o n e ideology to another. Christ's cross evokes (perhaps even invokes)

b o t h God's covenant a n d

Rome's empire, n o t r e c o n c i l i n g the two, but j u x t a p o s i n g t h e m , allow-

106. Brueggemann, "Biblical Theology Appropriately Postmodern," 101-3. These three pairs are, of course, designed with postmodern readings in mind. 107. As Brueggemann himself has pointed out repeatedly: see Prophetic Imagination, where true reality is shaped by the "God who is as yet unco-opted and uncontained by the empire" (27), while later prophetic voices, including that of Jesus, serve to dismantle the surrounding empires favorite images (76-83). Another example comes from the structure of Brueggemanns Reverberations of Faith: empire does not appear as one of the book's 100 "topics of theological interest," but each historical superpower Israel faced receives its own entry! 108. Brueggemann, Prophetic Imagination, 16.

226

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ing Paul to d r o p hints about h o w o n e c i r c u m s c r i b e s the other. E m p i r e is here the antithesis

o f covenant, the c o u n t e r - t h e m e a m o n g biblical-

theological t h e m e s that can b e traced through the O l d Testament and N e w Testament. Finally, to cite a n o t h e r " N T " : Ν . T. W r i g h t m a k e s a similar c l a i m about t h e status o f empire relative to G o d s reign. I f Paul casts Jesus as "Lord" as a rival to Caesar, then Jesus'"empire" c o m p e t e s with Rome's: This counter-empire can never be merely critical, never merely subversive. It claims to be the reality of which Caesar s empire is the parody. It claims to be modeling the genuine humanness, not least the justice and peace, and the unity across traditional racial and cultural barriers, of which Caesars empire boasted. 109

W i t h e r i n g t o n uses this excerpt from Wright to highlight the i m ­ p o r t a n c e o f allegiance to Christ as Lord: in the course o f reassuring his congregants c o n c e r n i n g the fate o f m a r t y r e d friends, Paul is "making s o m e remarkable christological and eschatological assertions," but is "also busily d e c o n s t r u c t i n g the extant pagan value system so that his converts will n o t lapse b a c k into allegiance to it."

110

Yet after quoting

Wright, W i t h e r i n g t o n immediately returns to calling Paul's message sub­ versive.

111

C e r t a i n l y it could have b e e n read that way; but as W r i g h t says,

it is never merely

subversive. T o those with eyes to see and read carefully,

Paul is indeed b o r r o w i n g from the rubrics o f the O l d Testament, and d e c o n s t r u c t i n g those o f the empire—but he uses m a n y o f the pieces to build his own interpretive rubric, in the shape o f the cross o f Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Marilyn McCord. Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology. Current Issues in Theology Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Anderson, Paul Ν. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered. LNTS (JSNTSup) 321. New York: Τ. & T. Clark, 2006. Arnold, Clinton Ε. Ephesians, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of its Historical Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. . Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Pauls Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Barth, Markus. Ephesians 1-3. AB 34. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974.

109. Wright,"Pauls Gospel," 182-83, referring mainly to Phil 2. 110. Witherington, Thessalonians, 140. 111. Ibid., 141.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

227

. The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Philadelphia: Judson, 1959. Bartholomew, Craig et al., editors. Canon and Biblical Interpretation. SH 7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2006. Bartholomew, Craig et al., editors. Out Of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. SH 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Bolt, Peter G. "Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World." In Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 51-79. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Brueggemann, Walter. "Biblical Theology Appropriately Postmodern." In Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky, 97-108. SBLSymS 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. . The Prophetic Imagination. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. . Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Caird, G. B. "The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7-11." In Studia Evangelica II-III, edited by F. L. Cross, 535-45. TUGAL 87-88. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964. Carter, Warren. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Essential Guides. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. Donfried, Karl. "The Assembly of the Thessalonians: Reflections on the Ecclesiology of the Earliest Christian Letter." In Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, 139-62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. . "The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence." In his Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, 21-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Edwards, Mark J. editor. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. ACCS: New Testament 8. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999. Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Penguin, 1997. Elliott, Neil. "The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross." In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, edited by Richard A. Horsley, 167-83. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. . "Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities." In Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work ofJames C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, edited by Richard A. Horsley, 97-122. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Esler, Philip F."Gods Honour and Rome's Triumph: Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses." In Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler, 239-58. New York: Routledge, 1995. . "Rome in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature." In The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John Riches and David C. Sim, 9-33. JSNTSup 276. New York: Τ. & T. Clark (Continuum), 2005. Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Gombis, Timothy G. "Cosmic Lordship and Divine Gift-Giving: Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8." NovT 47 (2005) 367-80.

228

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

. "Ephesians 2 as a Narrative of Divine Warfare." JSNT 26 (2004) 403-18. Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Head, Ivan. "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengels Thesis." JRH 28 (2004) 240-59. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World, and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1986. Horsley, Richard Α., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Horsley, Richard Α., and Neil Asher Silberman. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. James, P. D. The Children of Men. New York: Knopf, 1992. Keesmaat, Sylvia C."In the Face of Empire: Pauls Use of Scripture in the Shorter Epistles." In Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 182-212. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. . "The Psalms in Romans and Galatians." In The Psalms in the New Testament, edited by Steve Moyise and M. J. J. Menken, 139-61. New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel Series. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2004. Kent, Homer Α., Jr. "Philippians." In The Expositors Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 11:95-159. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Knight, George W, III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster, 1992. Knowles, Michael P. We Preach Not Ourselves: Paul and Preaching in the Presence of God. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2008. Kreitzer, Larry J. Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World. JSNTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Lemcio, Eugene E. "The Gospels within the New Testament Canon." In Canon and Biblical Interpretation, edited by Craig Bartholomew et al, 123-45. SH 7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Longenecker, Richard N. New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Maslen, Matthew W, and Piers D. Mitchell. "Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (2006) 185-88. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Miller, Patrick D. "Psalms." In The HarperCollins Study Bible, NRSV, edited by Wayne A. Meeks, 797-937. SBL Annotated Edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Moritz, Thorsten. A Profound Mystery: The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians. NovTSup 85. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Moyise, Steve, and M. J. J. Menken, editors. The Psalms in the New Testament. New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel Series. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2004. Oakes, Peter. "Gods Sovereignty over Roman Authorities: A Theme in Philippians." In Rome in the Bible and the Early Church, edited by Peter Oakes, 126-41. Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

L O W E — " T h i s Was Not an Ordinary

Death"

Richardson, Cyril C , trans, and ed. Early Christian Fathers. LCC vol. 1. New York: Collier/ Macmillan, 1970. Roberts, J. J. M. "The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms." CBQ 64 (2002) 675-86. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. "Psalms." In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays, 394-446. Revised ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000. Walsh, Brian J., and Sylvia C. Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Wanamaker, C. A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster, 1990. Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Witherington, Ben. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. . Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. I. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, I -2 Timothy and 1 -3 John. Downers Grove, IL: I VP Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2006. Wright, Ν. T. "Pauls Gospel and Caesars Empire." In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, edited by Richard Horsley, 160-83. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.

229

8 Running the Gamut The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity

C Y N T H I A LONG WESTFALL

T

HIS PAPER EXPLORES T H E relationship between the R o m a n E m p i r e and the Jewish Christian corpus in the N e w Testament, exclud­

ing the Gospels, w h i c h includes Hebrews, the G e n e r a l Epistles, and 1

Revelation. T h e relationship b e t w e e n the R o m a n E m p i r e a n d any b o o k in the N e w T e s t a m e n t offers an interesting challenge. T h e first question to ask is, " W h a t c o u n t s for evidence in locating the relationship b e t w e e n empire and the N e w T e s t a m e n t ? " I propose that there are three criteria, any o f which could c o u n t for evidence. T h e first would b e authorial in­ tention: D i d the author intend to interact with the R o m a n E m p i r e either in a c c o m m o d a t i o n o r confrontation in what is written? Authorial intent is difficult to ascertain, but that can b e helped by the s e c o n d criterion: " W o u l d the recipients read a given passage or phrase as a negotiation or confrontation o f e m p i r e ? " T h e third criterion is as i m p o r t a n t as the first two: " W o u l d the R o m a n authorities perceive a passage o r phrase to b e addressing empire; especially, would a given statement offend the authorities o r b e considered subversive to the e m p i r e ? " This m a y b e the m o s t pertinent question, b e c a u s e an author m a y c l a i m that Christian 1. See the discussion of the constitution of the Hebrew mission in terms of identity, geography, leadership and canon in Westfall, "The Hebrew Mission," 189-91. See also Dunns chart in Unity and Diversity, 265, though Dunn places the Johannine literature and Jude in an additional category as "Hellenistic Christianity," and Revelation is identi­ fied as a separate category of apocalyptic literature. He also treats 2 Peter as institution­ alization in the early church.

230

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

231

b e h a v i o r is submissive o r c o m m a n d t h e recipients to behave as g o o d citizens o f a city, b u t t h e n define o r qualify behavior in such a way that t h e R o m a n E m p i r e would c o n s i d e r it illegitimate. S o m e would suggest that s o m e o f t h e practices that are addressed in t h e empire genre were n o t peculiar to R o m a n rule, but h a d their origin in l o c a l practices, t h e ancient M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d E a s t e r n culture, o r virtually all civilization, so that t h e R o m a n E m p i r e c a n n o t b e held responsible. However, t h e e m p i r e utilized l o c a l c u s t o m s a n d cultures to a c c o m p l i s h its goals, a n d n e i t h e r t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t n o r t h e N e w Testament was shy about h o l d ­ ing an oppressive c o n q u e r o r responsible for m a n y o f t h e challenges that t h e people o f G o d faced. The study o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t often in­ volves the analysis o f t h e text t h r o u g h various lenses o r m o d e l s o f t h e social s c i e n c e s . A n extensive study o f empire in any given text would involve utilizing a series o f tools o n e a c h text that uncover, for example, e a c h o f t h e eight m e a n s highlighted b y W a r r e n C a r t e r t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e R o m a n E m p i r e exercised political, e c o n o m i c , social, military, a n d 2

religious power. However, the literature o f early Jewish Christianity in t h e n o n - P a u l i n e epistles has a t e n d e n c y to display t h e negotiation o f o n e aspect o f e m p i r e m o r e distinctively t h a n others, so that I will identify a n d utilize o n e lens t o view e a c h epistle. J a m e s is analyzed with an e c o ­ n o m i c m o d e l , 1 Peter is analyzed with a social m o d e l , 2 Peter, Jude, a n d t h e J o h a n n i n e Epistles are analyzed in relation to t h e ethical values o f t h e empire, a n d H e b r e w s is analyzed with a religious/political m o d e l . Finally, Revelation is viewed as r u n n i n g t h e gamut o f the c o n c e r n s that Jewish Christianity faced as it negotiated a perilous path a m o n g the R o m a n E m p i r e , Judaism, a n d G e n t i l e Christianity.

JAMES AND T H E ECONOMIC CONTROL OF THE EMPIRE J a m e s h a s b e e n s u r r o u n d e d b y controversies c o n c e r n i n g its authorship, 3

content, a n d message. However, its scathing c r i t i q u e o f e c o n o m i c c o n d i -

2. See Carter, "Proclaiming (in/against) Empire," 153-54. The eight means were economic control, taxes and tributes, Roman military power, war, pervasive patronage, imperial theology, rhetoric, and Roman "justice." 3. Elsa Tamez characterizes James as "subversive" and reads James from the view­ point of liberation theology in The Scandalous Message of James. Colossians Remixed by Walsh and Keesmaat, is reminiscent of Tamez s work and the reading of other liberation theologians, though the relationship is not generally explicit. y

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

232

tions u n d e r the R o m a n E m p i r e is consistent with the tensions a m o n g the peasants in Palestine that eventually provoked the war against R o m e 4

and preceded the destruction o f the temple in 7 0 C E . It is also c o n s i s ­ tent with c o n d i t i o n s throughout the empire in places such as Syria and possibly Egypt. A c c o r d i n g to S. D y s o n , the Jewish revolt against t h e R o m a n E m p i r e o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f rapid Hellenization and R o m a n i z a t i o n accultura­ 5

t i o n . It was t o o m u c h t o o fast, where R o m e i m p o s e d a n e w administra­ tive structure, governors, and taxation, and confiscated the land for the soldier-farmers: the n e w aristocracy. As D u l i n g observed, "politically, urban ruling strata needed large bureaucracies and m i l i t a r y establish­ 6

m e n t s and exploited peasants." It was an agrarian e c o n o m y where an aristocracy or the upper strata were the ruling class, w h i c h n e e d e d m a n y peasants in the lower strata to support it. This relationship involved exploitation. T h e recipients o f J a m e s addressed b y the author could potentially b e identified with a n u m b e r o f e c o n o m i c groups. However, the text iden­ tifies the Christian faith with the p o o r (Jas 2 : 5 ) and the congregation as a whole is described as exploited and abused by the rich (Jas 2 : 6 ) . T h e letter begins with h o w to handle trials, and the specific trials the author addresses in the letter are the struggles o f poverty and oppres­ 7

s i o n . R i c h landowners and m e r c h a n t s are also addressed directly (Jas 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ; 5 : 1 - 7 ) , though the address to the rich in Jas 5 : 1 - 7 is probably a rhetorical diatribe or apostrophe directed at n o n - C h r i s t i a n s . T h e m o s t plausible picture is a congregation that was primarily in the lower e c o ­ 8

n o m i c stratum o f rural day l a b o r e r s and urban artisans, s o m e o f w h o m were drawn to the c o m m e r c i a l opportunities offered in the e m p i r e .

9

S o m e o f t h o s e artisans could have m o v e d or b e e n in the process o f m o v 4. There is no specific crisis in view but a state of affairs. While James is consistent with conditions preceding the Bar Kochba revolt, the pivotal crisis of the destruction of the temple with the violent use of military force in Palestine may have cast more of a shadow over the depiction of the rich and powerful. 5. Dyson, "Native Revolts." 6. Duling, "Empire: Theories, Methods, Models," 53. 7. As states Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 690. 8. The reference to the wages of day laborers rather than slave labor may indicate a Palestinian destination. 9. Davids, James, 30, suggests that the shortage of land together with the influx of Hellenistic goods attracted many to trade.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

ing into t h e top o f the lower strata, c o m p a r a b l e to R o m a n freedpersons w h o o w n e d land a n d were involved in trading, b a n k i n g , as well as artisan work, b u t c o u l d n o t m o v e into the higher orders b e c a u s e o f servile o r i ­ gins.

10

Nevertheless, this s e g m e n t o f the lower strata c o u l d achieve great

wealth a n d s o m e t i m e s b e c a m e benefactors. Therefore t h e congregation c o u l d b e e c o n o m i c a l l y diverse while b e l o n g i n g to the 9 9 percent o f t h e population in the lower strata, sandwiched b e t w e e n the elite in the upper strata w h o exploited t h e m a n d the expendables (Jas 2 : 2 - 4 ) , over w h o m t h e y in t u r n held a position o f e c o n o m i c a n d social status a n d power. J a m e s characterizes three people groups a c c o r d i n g to their e c o ­ n o m i c status: t h e poor, the m e r c h a n t s , a n d the rich. T h e descriptions o f the "poor" c o i n c i d e well with e c o n o m i c descriptions o f the 9 9 percent in the lower strata. H e gives an example o f "a p o o r p e r s o n in filthy clothes" (Jas 2 : 2 ) w h o is depicted as marginalized and insulted in the c o n g r e g a ­ tion. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f an expendable is the b r o t h e r o r sister without clothes a n d daily food in 2:15. Barely higher t h a n expendables, the rural day laborers are particularly presented as an oppressed group in Jas 5:4: Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Almighty. This group o f day laborers grew significantly over a c e n t u r y before, w h e n the R o m a n general P o m p e y first seized a n d controlled Judean territory a n d left m a n y Jewish peasants landless. C o n s e q u e n t exorbitant taxation u n d e r the R o m a n system would have added to the n u m b e r o f landless p o o r w h o w o r k e d o n feudal-like estates o r b e c a m e day laborers w h o s h o w e d up in t h e m a r k e t place, s o m e t h i n g like m i g r a n t workers, as in the parable o f the workers in the vineyard in M a t t 2 0 : 1 - 1 6 . T h o u g h the subsistence living o f the day laborers and the c o n t r o l o f t h e land b y t h e elite is r e c o g n i z e d as exploitation, James further claims that the p o o r are n o t b e i n g paid their wages. James's accusation that the i n n o c e n t are c o n d e m n e d a n d m u r d e r e d b y t h e rich m o s t likely extends b e y o n d day laborers to any lethal use o f power against the powerless o f the lower strata (Jas 5 : 6 ) . J a m e s claims that the readers, as m e m b e r s o f the lower strata, are all v i c t i m s o f e c o n o m i c exploitation b y the rich elite (Jas 2 : 6 ) . 10. Alfoldy, Social History, 109-26, gives a pyramidal analysis of the Roman Orders where the upper strata (after Caesar) consist of senators (ordo senatorius), the equestri­ an order (ordo equester), the local (urban) elites (ordo decurionum), and the emperors slaves and freedpersons (familia Caesaris); see the chart on 146.

233

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

234

F u r t h e r m o r e , J a m e s places t h e readers in t h e lower strata w h e n h e claims that the rich subject t h e m t o what W a r r e n C a r t e r calls " R o m a n j u s t i c e " w h e n they are dragged before a c o u r t that "protected elite m e m b e r s a n d t o o k harsh action against threats t o the structures" (Jas 2 : 6 ) . In

Jas 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 , J a m e s (perhaps

11

rhetorically) addresses

mer­

chants, and in 5 : 1 - 6 , he addresses wealthy landowners. In t h e light o f the e c o n o m i c m o d e l s o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , it is t e m p t i n g t o suggest that J a m e s addresses first t h e urban rich and then t h e rural rich, since t h e y are j u x t a p o s e d . However, the s c e n a r i o also fits a m b i t i o u s artisans w h o possessed e n o u g h resources t o take advantage o f t h e o p p o r t u n i ­ ties that the R o m a n E m p i r e had t o offer—and m a n y in Palestine h a d t h o s e kinds o f resources. T h e m e r c h a n t o r potential m e r c h a n t in 4 : 1 3 m a k e s entrepreneurial plans to travel to a city, start a business, w o r k for o n l y a year, a n d expects o r a s s u m e s a profit in that p e r i o d o f t i m e . This m a y reflect the particular Palestinian c o n c e r n o f t h e author. S i n c e G r e e k rule began u n d e r Alexander, Jews had b e e n t a k i n g part in a vol­ untary dispersion b e c a u s e this k i n d o f opportunity in parts o f t h e G r e e k and R o m a n E m p i r e s offered greater e c o n o m i c gain than Israel offered. Consequently, A l e x a n d r i a b e c a m e the largest location o f Jews outside Palestine. Therefore t h e group o f people w h o functioned as m e r c h a n t s included people from b o t h the upper and lower strata. C o n t r a r y t o what is often asserted, the fledgling c h u r c h in Israel o r Syria n e e d e d n o significant t i m e t o develop this k i n d o f p r o b l e m with wealth. Perhaps the group o f m e r c h a n t s should b e m o r e characterized b y their entrepre­ neurial attitudes, plans, a n d actions rather than their e c o n o m i c status, which could vary significantly. It m a y b e simplistic to a s s u m e that every reference t o the rich in James reflects the upper strata. T h e "rich" described in Jas 1 : 1 0 - 1 1 , where 11. Carter, "Proclaiming (in/against) Empire," 154. Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 694, writes, "Roman laws explicitly favored the rich. Persons of lower class, who were thought to act from economic self-interest, could not bring accusations against persons of higher class, and the laws prescribed harsher penalties for lowerclass persons convicted of offenses than for offenders from the higher class." Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 23, reflects the traditional perspective when he claims that Rome implemented "perhaps the most enlightened and advanced judicial processes of antiq­ uity. It had its tyrants and despots to be sure, along with various breaches of conduct, but due process of law brought justice, at least for citizens, more consistently than in other empires." Perhaps the key phrase here is "at least for citizens." What worked in Paul's favor as a Roman citizen discriminated against most Jewish Christians and other local populations.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

t h e rich p e r s o n s position is c o n t r a s t e d with t h e p o o r p e r s o n s position, m a y p r i m a r i l y refer t o t h o s e in the congregation w h o h a d relatively m o r e e c o n o m i c p o w e r a n d status t h a n others in " h u m b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " in t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n — a p e r s o n in " h u m b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " tends to classify wealth o n t h e p r a g m a t i c basis o f c o m p a r i s o n — s o m e o n e is perceived as r i c h w h o has significantly m o r e possessions t h a n others in a given group.

12

Similarly, i f the preferential treatment o f t h e "rich" p e r s o n in

t h e rhetorical e x a m p l e in Jas 2:2 reflected an actual pattern o f behavior, it c o u l d include p e r s o n s w h o were potential benefactors, including arti­ sans o r m e r c h a n t s in t h e lower strata—they certainly would b e a target for t h o s e raising funds.

13

O n the o t h e r hand, t h e description in James's

rhetorical e x a m p l e signals a m e m b e r o f the upper strata. G o l d rings and fine clothes m a r k e d great wealth and status.

14

Even m o r e , the c o n t e x t o f

t h e c o u r t a n d lawsuits indicates that James was targeting the upper strata (Jas 2:6). T h e upper strata c o u l d initiate lawsuits against social inferiors, b u t social inferiors c o u l d n o t initiate lawsuits. T h e Jewish L a w rejects this k i n d o f distinction as i m m o r a l , so that i f the venue is Palestine, t h e text depicts a c o r r u p t i o n o f t h e Jewish c o u r t b y R o m a n practice, p r e s u m a b l y t h r o u g h t h e collusion o f t h e local elite: wealthy u r b a n a n d rural Jews. J a m e s goes further in 5 : 1 - 6 a n d accuses rich landowners o f h o a r d i n g in a way that reflects Jesus' teaching o n storing up treasure in M a t t 6 : 1 9 - 2 0 : their stockpiled g o o d s are rotted, clothing is m o t h - e a t e n , and gold a n d silver are c o r r o d e d (Jas 5 : 2 - 3 ) . T h e y are living in l u x u r y and self-indul­ g e n c e while withholding t h e wages o f t h e day laborers (Jas 5 : 4 - 5 ) . Again, the w i t h h o l d i n g o f wages f r o m t h e p o o r for even a day was expressly forbidden in t h e Jewish Law, w h i c h says that w h e n the p o o r c r y out to

12. Some recent commentators have suggested that the rich in Jas 1:9-11 are nonChristian because of the omission of "brother" in referring to the rich, the rich in the rest of the epistle consistently seem to form a wicked class, and there is no spiritual future mentioned (Martin, James, 25-26; Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 40-47). However, it is probable that ό πλούσιος is a modifier of 6 αδελφός in direct parallel with ό ταπεινό^. If so, in 1:10 the rich are called to a biblical humility in the context of faith, in which they value others more than themselves. This is a more appropriate address to believers with more resources rather than those involved in exploitation, corruption, hoarding, and murder. 13. As Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches, 151, asserts, while 2:1-4 could repre­ sent a hypothetical situation, the "historical verisimilitude" and the subsequent argu­ ment in 2:5-7 ("but you have insulted the poor") indicate that it is an actual pattern of occurrence. 14. Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 694.

235

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

c o m p l a i n about it, G o d will act ( D e u t 2 4 : 1 4 - 1 5 ; L e v 19:13; P r o v 11:24; Jer 2 2 : 1 3 ; M a i 3:5). In Judea, this would b e c o n s i d e r e d further e v i d e n c e o f the c o r r u p t i o n o f t h e Jewish local elite b y the R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e accusation that t h e y had. c o n d e m n e d and m u r d e r e d t h e i n n o c e n t cul­ minates the charges o f exploitation (Jas 5:6). Building tensions b e t w e e n the p o o r and rich Jewish landowners b e c a u s e o f these practices resulted in Jewish patriots slaughtering t h e rich Jewish landowners during t h e revolt.

15

James directly criticized the entitlement and pride i n h e r e n t in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e s e c o n o m i c system and blasted the exploitation o f t h e poor. As C a r t e r says, t h e e m p i r e was c o n c e r n e d with t h e exercise o f power: " W h o gets what a n d w h y ? " (p. 9 4 ) . T h e system was intentionally set up so the upper strata c o n t r o l l e d t h e power, wealth (land, slave labor, rents, taxes), and status. J a m e s directly confronted the p r a c t i c e o f basing status and power o n wealth b y reversing the status o f t h e rich and poor. In Jas 1 : 9 - 1 1 , the p o o r were told t o take pride in their high position and the rich were told to take pride in their humiliation. T h e high posi­ tion o f the p o o r refers to the spiritual blessings a n d position the believer receives in this life as well as the material and spiritual eschatological blessings.

16

This is particularly clear in 2:5, where J a m e s states that G o d

has c h o s e n the p o o r to b e rich in faith a n d to inherit t h e k i n g d o m . T h e humiliation o f the rich is the r e c o g n i t i o n o f the t r a n s i e n c e o f wealth and life in general (Jas 1 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , an evaluation that J a m e s also apples to the m e r c h a n t s ( 4 : 1 4 ) . This view o f reversed status is further reinforced in Jas 2 : 1 - 7 , where J a m e s insists that an e x p e n d a b l e p o o r p e r s o n b e given the s a m e status and h o n o r in w e l c o m e a n d seating in their m e e t i n g s as the rich person—this was truly revolutionary in a society w h e r e greeting and seating indicated o n e s status in t h e synagogues a n d b a n q u e t s (cf. Luke 11:43, 1 4 : 7 - 1 1 ) .

1 7

W h i l e the p o o r are characterized as b e i n g rich

in faith, the rich are characterized b y societal patterns o f abuse. In ad­ dition, the pride o f the entrepreneurial spirit o f the m e r c h a n t s fostered by the opportunities o f the R o m a n E m p i r e is criticized. J a m e s cautions 15. Ibid., 691. 16. See Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches, 149. However, Davids appears to see the position as eschatological (Davids, James, 76). 17. In Luke 11:43 and 14:7-11, the importance of status and honor in the greeting and seating is of particular importance for Pharisees. Ones seat signifies ones impor­ tance in relation to the others present. Public buildings such as the amphitheatres also had seating by status.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

his readers against a "practical atheism" that plans a n d expects profit without leaving r o o m for G o d s sovereign will and t h e unpredictability o f life (Jas 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) .

1 8

Finally, J a m e s confronts the abuses o f t h e wealthy

l a n d o w n e r s in a prophetic style, p r o m i s i n g j u d g m e n t where t h e y are fat­ t e n e d for t h e day o f slaughter a n d their flesh will b e eaten like fire (Jas 5 : 1 - 6 ) . T h e r e is n o question that J a m e s is directly confronting the e c o ­ n o m i c p o w e r structure o f t h e empire, calling believers to operate outside o f the e c o n o m i c value system a n d p r o n o u n c i n g severe j u d g m e n t o n t h e exploitation b y the rich. James's c r i t i c i s m o f t h e rich a n d his a d v o c a c y for t h e p o o r were b o t h criticisms o f t h e l o c a l Jewish elite a n d a denunciation o f t h e exploitation by t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s and similar reactions led to t h e Palestinian revolt against R o m e . However, t h o u g h J a m e s d e n o u n c e d exploitation in a m a n n e r w o r t h y o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t prophets, his f o r m o f resistance to t h e e m p i r e was n o n - v i o l e n t active resistance. H e challenged t h e position a n d p o w e r o f t h e wealthy and granted equal o r greater h o n o r a n d status to t h e p o o r believer. H e challenged the arro­ g a n c e o f t h e entrepreneurial spirit o f materialism that was prevalent in the empire. T h e R o m a n authorities w o u l d have found this to b e subver­ sive. T h e counter-cultural challenge o f James, w h i c h includes fellowship across social b o u n d a r i e s , a n d a d v o c a c y for t h e powerless, the p o o r a n d t h e oppressed should c o n t i n u e to b e hallmarks o f o u r interaction within o u r c h u r c h , society, a n d g o v e r n m e n t .

FIRST PETER A N D SOCIAL MARGINALITY IN T H E EMPIRE The social system o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e provides t h e c o n t e x t o f the ar­ g u m e n t in 1 Peter. T h e text identifies t h e readers as C h r i s t i a n Gentiles w h o are suffering primarily b e c a u s e o f social alienation—the suffering o f dishonor.

19

T h e text identifies t h e author as "Peter, an apostle o f Jesus

Christ." Tradition held that t h e Jewish/Galilean Christian Peter was writ­ ing f r o m R o m e in t h e early o r m i d 60s, close to the N e r o n i a n persecution. T h o u g h t h e letter is often held to b e p s e u d o n y m o u s , the text would still appeal t o whatever traditional c o n t e x t the early c h u r c h h a d formulated a b o u t Peter b y use o f his n a m e in t h e espistolary opening. T h e c o n t e x t

18. Adamson, James, 180. 19. As argued by Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter. However, Campbells treatment of the value of honor as a compositional key goes beyond using the social value as a lens.

237

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

o f Peter s life and situation is m e a n t to frame the letter s information and exhortation.

20

T h e social identity o f individuals within the R o m a n E m p i r e was closely related to e c o n o m i c status, but n o t identical to it. David deSilva asserts, " T h e patron-client relationship is the basic building b l o c k o f Greco-Roman

Society."

21

Patronage

involved personal

connections

b e t w e e n patrons and clients, consisting o f favors and loyalty as well as privilege and dependency. T h e principle o f reciprocity that existed between patrons and clients p e r m e a t e d all levels o f s o c i e t y and relation­ ships, from C a e s a r o n d o w n to slaves. A person s worth within the social system was that p e r s o n s honor, w h i c h is t h e "affirmation o f o n e s worth by o n e s peers and society, awarded o n t h e basis o f the individuals abil­ ity to e m b o d y the virtues and attributes that his o r her society values."

22

Since t h e R o m a n E m p i r e utilized the patron-client relationship as a m e a n s to exercise power, h o n o r i n g t h e established authorities was o n e o f its basic building b l o c k s , and the system was supported b y t h e threat o f irrevocable d i s h o n o r for ingratitude, disloyalty, o r n o n - c o n f o r m i t y . H o n o r c a m e in k n o w i n g o n e s place o r identity (birth, social class and status, wealth, and patronage), c o n f o r m i n g to society's expectations and essential values consistent with o n e s place, and c o m p e t i n g for h o n o r with o n e s social peers. However, h o n o r was defined s o m e w h a t differ­ ently for w o m e n a n d slaves. F e m a l e so-called h o n o r was the p r i m a r y female virtue o f "shame," c o m p r i s e d o f defferential behavior, modesty, and chastity that e n h a n c e d the h o n o r o f the m a l e head o f hous ehol d (cf. Sir 2 6 : 1 0 - 1 6 ; 4 2 : 9 - 1 2 ; 4 M a c e 1 8 : 6 - 8 ; Thucydides, Hist. 2 . 4 5 . 2 ) .

23

Slaves

20. According to tradition, Peter died in the mid to late 60s, crucified upside down. Critical discussion often finds 1 Peter to be pseudonymous because the Greek vocabu­ lary and style is considered to be too polished for a Galileanfisherman,and often places the letter during the Domitian reign in the late 80s or early 90s. Others suggest it reflects the hostilities under Trajan in the 110s. However, there is nothing in the text that indi­ cates direct official persecution. 21. deSilva, "Patronage," 766. 22. deSilva, "Honor and Shame," 518. 23. Barton, "Social Values," 1129,1130. Some have tried to say that shame indicated women's high value, but this argument falls short of the reality where women were valued so little that infanticide practiced on female infants was so wide-spread that there was a shortage of females in the Roman Empire. As Rodney Stark suggests, the decline of the Roman population was due to the widespread infanticide of female in­ fants, and the common practice of primitive methods of abortion, which resulted in the deaths of women and infertility (Stark, Rise of Christianity, 115-22). He concludes,

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

239

in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e c o u l d b e found at all e c o n o m i c levels, but t h e y h a d n o honor. Slavery has b e e n described as a "dynamic process o f alien­ ation a n d d i s h o n o r t e r m e d social

death

. . . Social death m e a n s denying

a p e r s o n all dignity (as u n d e r s t o o d in that particular culture) and ties o f b i r t h in b o t h a s c e n d i n g o r descending generations . . . A l t h o u g h t h e y are n o t biologically dead, slaves, in effect, are socially dead to t h e free population."

24

Therefore, in t h e rhetoric o f the G r e c o - R o m a n culture,

w o m e n a n d slaves represented the e n d o f the line as far as patronage a n d h o n o r was c o n c e r n e d — i n the R o m a n E m p i r e , t h e y were socially defined by t h e i r dependency. H o u s e h o l d c o d e s originated with ancient moralists to define t h e authority relationship b e t w e e n the paterfamilias

and the

groups within the h o u s e h o l d (wives, children, a n d slaves) in order to p r o d u c e order in s o c i e t y as a w h o l e .

25

Peter addresses three p r i m a r y social challenges o f marginalization that t h e C h r i s t i a n s are facing that are sources o f suffering: t h e group as a w h o l e is e x p e r i e n c i n g deep rejection and public disgrace t h r o u g h insults and o t h e r f o r m s o f attack (1 Pet 3 : 8 — 4 : 1 9 ) ;

26

slaves are subject to indig­

nity, harsh treatment, a n d physical a n d sexual abuse (1 Pet 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 ) ;

2 7

a n d w o m e n are vulnerable a n d threatened in their marital relationships, particularly in marriages to unbelievers (1 Pet 3 : l - 7 ) .

2 8

As members o f a

group u n d e r attack, slaves a n d w o m e n have a double stigma a n d are t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e group m o s t vulnerable to suffering a n d abuse, p a r t i c u ­ larly w h e n the paterfamilias

is n o t a Christian.

"In the final analysis, a populations capacity to reproduce is a function of the propor­ tion of that population consisting of women in their childbearing years, and the GrecoRoman world had an acute shortage of women" (122). 24. Harrill,"Slavery," 1125. 25. See Keener, "Family and Household," 353, for a brief introduction to household codes. 26. See Westfall, "Relationship," 117-23, where it is shown that the topic in 1 Pet 3:8—4:6 is speech. 27. The physical abuse experienced by slaves in the Roman Empire was not limited to beating, which is mentioned as a specific example in 1 Pet 2:30, but included routine sexual violation for both males and females. Margaret MacDonald documents the com­ mon sexual violation of slaves and the break-up of slave families in the Roman culture ("Slavery"). The sexual violation and breakup of families were two of the primary rea­ sons for the slave s dishonor. 28. Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 147, suggests that the address to wives is longer than the address to husbands "probably because of the potential explosiveness within a marriage where the wife has converted to Christ and the husband has not."

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

240

B a r t h C a m p b e l l suggests that a m a j o r development o f P e t e r s epis­ tolary discourse is " h o w Christian sufferers w h o are publicly disgraced 29

can nevertheless b e a r honor." A s h e argues, " T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . . . was perceived b y the indigenous e t h n i c a n d / o r religious majorities s o m e h o w to b e a threat to the established order."

30

T h e d o m i n a n t culture

responded with rejection that t o o k t h e f o r m o f a c o n t i n u o u s s t r e a m o f insults, challenging with hostile questions, slandering, a n d m a l i g n i n g believers, and ultimately b l a s p h e m i n g . People w h o did this represented the d o m i n a n t cultural system in w h i c h t h e believers h a d t o exist as a subculture. Peter responded t o this challenge in 1 Pet 1:1—2:10, estab­ lishing that t h e believers w h o were alien residents a n d visiting strangers in the R o m a n E m p i r e h a d h o n o r as m e m b e r s o f t h e h o u s e h o l d o f G o d . This identity was strengthened b y m e t a p h o r s drawn f r o m t h e identity o f Israel in the O l d Testament: t h e y were rejected by people b u t c h o s e n by G o d to b e a temple, a c h o s e n people, a royal p r i e s t h o o d , a holy nation, and a people b e l o n g i n g t o G o d (1 Pet 2 : 4 - 5 , 9 ) . Peter established t h e readers' value outside o f t h e social system o f t h e d o m i n a n t culture— what was disgrace in t h e eyes o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e was h o n o r in the eyes o f G o d and in t h e c o m m u n i t y o f faith. That n o n - c o n f o r m i t y was exactly why t h e y were perceived as a threat t o the established order. It required an identity and life pattern that Peter u n d e r s t o o d from his e x ­ p e r i e n c e as a J e w living u n d e r harsh R o m a n rule, w h i c h h e c o u l d explain and transfer to t h e readers—the c o n d i t i o n s o f the Jewish D i a s p o r a were applied t o the G e n t i l e b e l i e v e r s .

31

P e t e r s c o m m a n d s were t o s u b m i t t o "every authority instituted a m o n g people" including the e m p e r o r and the governors sent b y the king, and to h o n o r everyone, particularly t h e e m p e r o r (1 Pet 2 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) . This c o m m a n d t o submit m u s t b e read within the c o n t e x t o f his militant resistance o f the society's values t h r o u g h n o n - c o n f o r m i t y and the p o s -

29. Ibid., 37. 30. Ibid., 107. 31. See Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 192. Martin sees ελεύθεροι in 1 Pet 2:16 as political: "Because of the significant theological tradition behind this term many commentators deny it has any political connotation in this passage. However, I argue it does have political connotation in this context that contains political terms drawn from the Diaspora and discusses various groups of aliens." It is interesting that Campbell, along with other commentators, appears to compartmentalize metaphor, theological tradition, and political connotations (Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 117 n. 60). Clearly, what is metaphoric can be political—particularly in the view of a despotic empire.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

241

session o f t h e citizenship o f a k i n g d o m that was in c o m p e t i t i o n with t h e empire. After stepping outside o f t h e patronage system a n d taking a stance that c o u l d o n l y b e perceived b y t h o s e w h o were outsiders t o t h e faith b u t insiders t o t h e e m p i r e as disloyal, his definition o f submission a n d t h e client's obligation to h o n o r h a d b e c o m e seriously constrained. S u b m i s s i o n t o authority in 1 Peter is a limited c o m m i t m e n t o f respect or deference t o authorities in t h e c o r r e c t application o f R o m a n j u s t i c e (1 Pet 2 : 1 4 ) a n d w o r k i n g for t h e public g o o d .

32

This fell far short o f

t h e imperial definition a n d d e m a n d s o f submission, but m e t ethical demands. The fact that Peter instructed h o u s e h o l d slaves a n d wives directly would b e seen as usurping t h e prerogative o f the h e a d o f t h e household. It also implied that slaves a n d w o m e n h a d m o r a l responsibility and c h o i c e that was unparalleled in t h e d o m i n a n t culture a n d so was a way o f resis­ t a n c e b e c a u s e it seized initiative f r o m the powerful.

33

T h e submission o f

h o u s e h o l d slaves to masters (1 Pet 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 ) was c o n s t r a i n e d in t h e s a m e way as t h e b e l i e v e r s submission t o governing authorities with m o r e 34

radical results. Yes, the h o u s e h o l d slaves were to s u b m i t themselves to their masters with all respect, w h e t h e r t h e y were considerate o r harsh, b u t t h e slaves' s u b m i s s i o n was e m b e d d e d in the general c o m m a n d for t h e believer to h o n o r everyone, w h i c h implied that h o n o r was n o longer 35

b a s e d o n o n e s status o r value in t h e eyes o f society. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e believer's identity a n d value in C h r i s t was applied to the slave w h o h a d n o h o n o r o r social e x i s t e n c e in t h e eyes o f the empire. M o r e t h a n that, the h o u s e h o l d slaves were s h o w n to b e potentially t h e ultimate m o d e l s o f Christ's example. T h e y were told t o suffer for doing g o o d b e c a u s e , 32. See Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 108-14. 33. See Jobes, 1 Peter, 206. 34. In 1 Pet 2:18, οικέται is used to refer to household slaves rather than the term δούλοι, which is favored by Paul in the household codes. This connects the slaves ex­ plicitly to the spiritual house of God (οίκος πνευματικός) in 1 Pet 2:5. 35. The discourse of honoring everyone (1 Pet 2:17) is continued with the specific application of household slaves honoring their masters, formally signaled by the use of the participle ύποτασσόμενοι in 1 Pet 2:18 and 3:1, as well as συνοικουντες and απονέμοντες in 3:7 rather than afiniteverb. Furthermore, 3:1 and 3:7 are marked with ομοίως. Therefore, the household code is embedded in a general command, which subverts the hierarchical application. There are structural similarities to Eph 5:22, where the wives' submission is embedded in a general command to be filled with the Spirit (5:18)—only in the case of the wife, the verb is missing entirely so that it is further embedded in the participial phrase to submit to one another in 5:21.

242

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

" T o this y o u were called, b e c a u s e C h r i s t suffered for you, leaving you an example, that y o u should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2 : 2 1 ) . T h e n Peter p r o c e e d e d t o give parallels b e t w e e n t h e abused slave a n d the passion o f Christ (1 Pet 2 : 2 2 - 2 5 ) .

3 6

In the s a m e way that M a r k reversed the s h a m e

o f the crucifixion o f Christ so that it was the glory o f the cross, Peter reversed the s h a m e o f the slave. A slave n o longer had to submit b e c a u s e o f social inferiority a n d degradation—he o r she was called to walk in the footsteps o f Jesus and b e a m o d e l o f Christ-like b e h a v i o r to the whole suffering c o m m u n i t y . This redefinition o f the slaves identity struck at t h e heart o f the patronage system a n d the value o f h o n o r in the R o m a n E m p i r e — e v e r y t h i n g was t u r n e d o n its head, a n d yet a C h r i s t i a n slave w h o t o o k P e t e r s teaching to heart would b e an ethical a n d e c o n o m i c pillar in the household. W h e r e a s an abused slave h a d a m i s s i o n o f m o d e l i n g C h r i s t to the Christian c o m m u n i t y t h r o u g h submission and enduring

suffer­

ing, w o m e n h a d a m i s s i o n o f w i n n i n g their husbands t o faith through submission ( 3 : l - 6 ) .

3 7

In the cultural context, this was an o x y m o r o n . A

w o m a n was required to adopt h e r h u s b a n d s religious beliefs; the sug­ gestion that a wife should have a religious agenda for h e r h u s b a n d was disruptive o f the social order; it was n o t submissive b e h a v i o r .

38

O n the

o t h e r hand, the "moral division o f l a b o r " o f the d o m i n a n t culture o f the R o m a n E m p i r e was upheld in t h e subsequent instructions. W o m e n were to pursue sexual purity, reverence, m o d e s t dress, a gentle and quiet spirit, and culturally respectful address to their husbands, which overtly c o m m u n i c a t e d the e x p e c t e d d o m e s t i c female submission. However, it lacked similar motivation. T h e y were t o pursue this b e h a v i o r in a proac­ tive way without "giving way to fear" (1 Pet 3 : 6 ) . In the culture, w o m e n 36. The association of the household slave with Christ through the suffering servant in Isaiah (1 Pet 2:22; Isa 53:9) may have been formative for Peters theology. 37. David Schroeder identified the household codes as ethical teaching that identi­ fied them as part of the mission of the church in a specific social context (Schroeder, Haustafeln, 26). Leonhard Goppelt similarly suggests that conformity to the social institutions of society define "doing good" in the structure of that society (Goppelt, Erste Petrusbrief, 6,41,59,177). But see Mac Donald, Early Christian Women, for a more specific discussion of the evangelizing potential of household relations in both 1 Cor 7:12-16 and 1 Pet 3:1-6 (189-204). See also Rodney Stark's discussion of exogamous marriage and secondary conversion as well as Christian women's fertility rates in the spread of early Christianity in Stark, Rise of Christianity, 111-17. 38. See Plutarch, Mor. HOD, 144D-E. See also Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 65-80, 85,96-97,99.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

were held t o b e fearful while m e n were held to b e courageous. However, Peter equips vulnerable w o m e n t o behave differentially with courage, that is, without b e i n g motivated b y intimidation o r worry. Significantly, t h e believing m e n are n o t e n j o i n e d t o a c o m p l e m e n t a r y m o r a l division o f labor. O n t h e contrary, t h e y are told t o live with t h e i r wives o r females in a considerate way since w o m e n are vulnerable, a n d t o give h o n o r t o t h e i r wives as fellow heirs o f t h e grace o f life.

39

T h e instructions b o t h

to t h e wife a n d to t h e h u s b a n d are formally e m b e d d e d along with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o slaves in t h e general c o m m a n d to h o n o r o n e another, so that t h e y are specific applications as to h o w believers are to h o n o r o n e a n o t h e r in relationships that are hierarchical in t h e culture. A s in t h e case o f slaves, w o m e n w h o s e virtue is their s h a m e in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e are called t o c o u r a g e o u s m i s s i o n driven b y a different set o f motivations a n d are to b e awarded h o n o r o r equal value b y their h u s b a n d s b e c a u s e o f their identity in C h r i s t .

40

Peter has reversed t h e h o n o r - s h a m e language

in such a way that h e has s h o w n that w o m e n in t h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u ­ nity are to b e t h e social peers o f m e n . Peter offered h o n o r to t h o s e w h o were d i s h o n o r e d in the d o m i ­ n a n t society. H e offered value to slaves w h o were n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e p e r s o n s . H e offered h o n o r a n d value to w o m e n w h o h a d n o h o n o r a n d relatively little social currency. It is difficult to ascertain from t h e text i f either Peter o r t h e readers saw his directions as subversive o f t h e empire. After all, t h e text is often presented as b e i n g supportive o f the R o m a n E m p i r e a n d t h e governing officials. However, there is evidence that R o m a n culture found t h e C h r i s t i a n social status o f slaves a n d w o m e n threatening a n d reprehensible.

41

F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e C h r i s t i a n practice

39. There is some question as to whether the reference that is usually translated as "wife" may rather refer to a class "the female": since γυναικείος (feminine, female) is used substantively rather than γυνη (woman, wife), which is used in w. 1-6. Those who take it as a class conclude that it would refer to all of the women in the household under a mans authority. See Jobes, 1 Peter, 207; and for example, Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 217. However, in the larger context of honoring everyone, γυναικείος could also refer to all women in the Christian community. 40. See Stark's discussion on the higher status of women in Christian circles: Stark, Rise of Christianity, 95-128. 41. As Margaret MacDonald notes, Celsus specifically criticized the effect that Christianity had on the wider social order (MacDonald, Early Christian Women, 1 ΙΟ­ Ι 1). Celsus complained, "By the fact that they themselves admit that these people are worthy of their God, they show that they want and are able to convince only the foolish, dishonourable and stupid, and only slaves, women and little children" (C. Cels. 3.44). So

243

244

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

o f Christian w o m e n having an intention to convert t h e h u s b a n d and subsequent children would have b e e n decried as subversive wherever detected, as would the evangelistic activities o f slaves. Peter s teaching c o n t r i b u t e d t o the attraction o f w o m e n and slaves to Christianity in sig­ nificant n u m b e r s . It would suggest that t h e y recognized t h e non-violent active nature o f t h e resistance.

JUDE AND 2 PETER, T H E JOHANNINE EPISTLES, A N D EMPIRE VALUES At first glance, the five short epistles that precede Revelation have little t o say about empire. All five address t h e p r o b l e m o f deviant disciples o r false teaching within t h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y , so the focus is internal rather than external. However, all five epistles attempt to create distance b e t w e e n t h e readers and the false teachers by depicting t h e false teachers as representatives o f t h e m i n d s e t and morality o f the G e n t i l e "world" that will b e j u d g e d apocalyptically. V i r t u e o r m o r a l i t y was a c o n c e r n and interest o f philosophers such as Plato, X e n o p h o n , a n d t h e Stoics, and there was a great deal o f ethical discourse in the G r e c o - R o m a n culture, w h i c h was reflected in speeches, inscriptions, gravesites, statues, and m e m o r i a l s but also in a p h o r i s m s en­ 42

c o u n t e r e d in o r n a m e n t s , g y m n a s i a , and city walls. However, "the g o o d " reflected the prevailing social e x p e c t a t i o n s and ideals o f the R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e virtues that are listed h o n o r the superiority o f the upper strata and the wealthy, such as military generals, office holders, doctors, and judges, and there is a vast g u l f that separates superior m e n from their inferiors.

43

Religious and m o r a l self-development o r progress, and

social a m b i t i o n for status and p r o m o t i o n in r a n k were considered virtue, t h o u g h b a l a n c e d in t h e o r y b y m o d e r a t i o n . As M a r k S t r o m states, "for the status/worth/honor that women and slaves found in Christianity was ridiculed. It was threatening because they took Christian teaching as the authority and basis of their lives, which undermined their traditional authorities: "But whenever [the low status Christian teachers] get hold of children in private and some stupid women with them, they let out some astounding statements, as, for example, that they must not pay any attention to their father and school-teachers, but must obey them; they say that these talk nonsense and have no understanding ..." (C. Cels. 3.55). 42. See Charles, "Vice and Virtue Lists." For examples of ethical discourse in the Greco-Roman culture, see Hesiod, Theog. 77-79, 240-64; Aristophanes, Ran. 5.145; Seneca, Brev. Vit. 10.4. 43. See Carters description of elite versus non-elite values in Roman Empire, 8-11.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

245

m o s t people, high a n d low, m o r a l i t y was shaped b y their social experi­ e n c e s o f obligation a n d virtue."

44

T h e social systems described o f rank,

friendship, patronage, honor, a n d reciprocity i n f o r m e d the e t h i c a l / m o r a l behavior, prioritizing serenity, order, a n d stability in civic life and t h e household. S u c h a definition o f morality failed to address t h e central Jewish m o r a l c o n c e r n s , a n d it a c c o u n t s for s o m e o f t h e accusations against C h r i s t i a n s o f gross i m m o r a l i t y a n d c r i m e s against humanity. C h r i s t i a n c o n d e m n a t i o n o f practices such as infanticide a n d a b o r t i o n failed t o c o n f o r m to t h e family values o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , Christian refusal to worship t h e e m p e r o r was i m m o r a l b e c a u s e it was disloyal, and their refusal t o worship local gods was a failure o f o n e s civic duty a n d n o less t h a n i m m o r a l atheism. I n c o m m o n with Paul, t h e authors o f the n o n - P a u l i n e epistles ap­ plied characteristic Jewish p o l e m i c s against three general categories o f G e n t i l e b e h a v i o r : t h e rejection o f G o d (evidenced a m o n g Gentiles as t h e worship o f false gods/idols), greed, a n d sexual i m m o r a l i t y .

45

However,

rather t h a n targeting Gentiles directly, t h e y a c c u s e d t h e false teachers that t h r eat e n e d t h e Christian c o m m u n i t y o f identifying with the world a n d exhibiting characteristic G e n t i l e sins. " M a n y deceivers have g o n e out into t h e world" (2 J o h n 7 ) , " t h o s e people b e l o n g to t h e world" (1 J o h n 4 : 5 ) , a n d t h e y s p e a k the language o f the world (1 J o h n 4 : 5 ) . A s Steven Smalley argues, t h e "world" is " h u m a n society, temporarily controlled b y t h e p o w e r o f evil, organized in opposition to G o d . "

46

The Roman Empire

e m b o d i e d t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n with what is t e m p o r a l a n d corruptible in a system that supported a n d attempted to c o n t r o l h u m a n society. Pagan authors such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, a n d S e n e c a c o n f i r m t h e i m ­ m o r a l i t y a n d greed o f t h e G r e c o - R o m a n world. B y identifying the false teachers with G e n t i l e immorality, t h e N e w Testament writers created distance b e t w e e n t h e readers a n d t h e false teachers. T h e y also created o r reflected distance b e t w e e n the readers a n d t h e imperial t h e o l o g y o f the Roman Empire. 44. Strom, Reframing Paul, 146. 45. James Dunn explains the origins of Pauls condemnation of idolatry, greed, and sexual immorality in humankind as coming from typical Jewish polemics directed against Gentiles, such as Wis 11-15 (Dunn, Theology of Paul 91-93). 46. Smalley, l 2, 3 John, 81. While the "world" might be "human nature incapable of attaining to God unless it is recreated by His Spirit," and "the absence of the other­ worldly" as argued by Raymond Brown, pious Judaism saw an inevitable progression from the absence of God to idolatry and immorality (Brown, Epistles of John, 325). y

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

A l t h o u g h t h e authors o f the five epistles did not a c c u s e the false teachers o f idol worship, t h e y repeatedly a c c u s e d t h e m o f denying Christ and, at t i m e s , o f slandering celestial beings (2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8 ) . However, in W i s d o m and o t h e r Jewish p o l e m i c s , idolatry originates from failing to recognize G o d ( W i s 13). A s D u n n s u m m a r i z e s , The point is that human creatures need their gods. As creatures they will always be dependent on someone or something for their fulfillment as creatures. If not God, then something alto­ gether baser. Without God they become subservient to their own desires. 47

F o r t h e a u t h o r s o f t h e five epistles, t h e denial o f Jesus ( 2 Pet 2 : 1 ; Jude 4 ) o r t h e denial o f t h e essential n a t u r e o f Jesus (1 J o h n 2 : 2 2 - 2 3 ; 4 : 2 - 3 ; 5 : 1 0 , 2 1 ; 2 J o h n 7 - 9 ) p l a c e s t h e false t e a c h e r s o n t h e s a m e t r a j e c t o r y as t h e G e n t i l e s w h o fail to r e c o g n i z e G o d . A s 1 J o h n 2 : 2 3 states, t h e failure t o r e c o g n i z e Jesus is t h e failure to r e c o g n i z e G o d : "No o n e w h o denies t h e S o n has t h e F a t h e r ; w h o e v e r a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e S o n h a s t h e F a t h e r also" (cf. 2 J o h n 7 ) . P e r h a p s t h e essential c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e de­ nial o f G o d a n d i d o l a t r y e x p l a i n s t h e c r y p t i c c l o s i n g o f 1 J o h n . After repeatedly c o n f r o n t i n g a n d e x p o s i n g false t e a c h i n g a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f Jesus, t h e a u t h o r e n d s with " D e a r c h i l d r e n , keep y o u r s e l f f r o m idols" (1 J o h n 5 : 2 1 ) . Jude j u x t a p o s e s sexual i m m o r a l i t y with the denial o f "Jesus Christ o u r only sovereign and L o r d " (Jude 4 ) in a similar way that W i s 14:12 j u x t a p o s e s idolatry and fornication: " T h e idea o f m a k i n g idols was the origin o f fornication, their discovery corrupted life." T h e sexual i m m o ­ rality o f the false teachers is a particular c o n c e r n o f Jude. H e cryptically c o m p a r e s their b e h a v i o r to Israel after leaving Egypt, the angels w h o had sexual relations with w o m e n in G e n 6 : 1 - 6 , and S o d o m and G o m o r r a h (Jude 5 - 7 ) . S e c o n d Peter similarly characterizes the false teachers: "their idea o f pleasure is to carouse in b r o a d d a y l i g h t . . . W i t h eyes full o f adul­ tery, they never stop sinning; t h e y seduce the unstable" (2 Pet 2 : 1 3 , 14; see also 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . T h e i n d i c t m e n t o f the culture o f the empire b e c o m e s clear w h e n Peter says that after the false teachers escaped the corruption o f that world by k n o w i n g Jesus, and t h e n again b e c a m e entangled in 47. Dunn, Theology of Paul 92. It is important to note that Dunn is describing how Paul drew his theology from the book of Wisdom, and that I am not suggesting that the authors of the non-Pauline epistles have necessarily read Paul, but that they also are drawing from Wisdom or a similar source.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

247

it a n d o v e r c o m e — t h e y were dogs returning to their vomit. T h e world represented b y t h e R o m a n E m p i r e is equated to vomit. In 1 J o h n , J o h n warns the readers n o t to love the world or anything in t h e world. T h e desires o f the world are the cravings o f sinful people, t h e lust o f t h e eyes, a n d the pride o f life (1 J o h n 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) . T h e confronta­ tion o f sexual i m m o r a l i t y is woven together with the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f pride a n d greed—and a m b i t i o n was considered to b e virtuous in t h e R o m a n value system. T h i r d J o h n was written against D i o t r e p h e s , w h o s e desire "to b e first" caused h i m to reject "the elder," to refuse to receive others, a n d even e x c o m m u n i c a t e t h o s e w h o did receive t h e m (3 J o h n 9 - 1 0 ) . Jude cryptically c o m p a r e s t h e false teachers in their selfishness a n d greed with C a i n a n d B a l a a m , calling t h e m shepherds w h o o n l y feed themselves. Peter accuses t h e false teachers o f exploiting the readers in their greed (1 Pet 2:3). " T h e y are experts in greed—an a c c u r s e d b r o o d ! " w h o followed t h e way o f B a l a a m b y prophesying for pay ( 2 Pet 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) . The false teachers are d e s c r i b e d as ambitious, selfish, a n d prideful, a n d motivated b y a desire for money. T h o u g h the authors draw parallels with O l d T e s t a m e n t figures, t h e b e h a v i o r is consistent with the d o m i n a n t cul­ ture s virtue o f social a m b i t i o n for status a n d p r o m o t i o n in rank. The j u d g m e n t o f the false teachers' deceptions about Christ, sexual immorality, a n d greed would c u l m i n a t e in their apocalyptic destruction along with all t h e ungodly at t h e c o m i n g o f Christ, w h i c h is particu­ larly e m p h a s i z e d in Jude a n d 2 Peter (Jude 1 4 - 1 6 ; 2 Pet 2 : 1 - 1 0 , 3 : 1 - 1 4 ) . Therefore, t h e authors pass j u d g m e n t o n the R o m a n Empire's c l a i m to faith, righteousness, a n d p e a c e a n d the c r e e d that R o m e was to b e an empire without e n d (Virgil, Aen.

1.279).

48

Ethics a n d values are n o t prevalent topics in t h e empire genre, but this k i n d o f confrontation o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e in Jewish Christianity has a deep r o o t in the O l d T e s t a m e n t a n d H e b r e w literature, a n d c o m e s to full flower in Revelation. T h e idolatry, sexual immorality, and greed o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e are p r i m a r y reasons for its ultimate destruction.

H E B R E W S AS A C H A L L E N G E T O R O M A N R E A L I T Y Hebrews represents a distinct challenge b e c a u s e its author and recipi­ ents are u n k n o w n , so that reading it in the light o f its c o n t e x t involves a

4

48. For a brief summary of imperial theology and claims of the eternal Rome," see Carter, Roman Empire, 83-85,88-89.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

certain a m o u n t o f speculation. However, Hebrews can b e c o n v i n c i n g l y portrayed as an e x h o r t a t i o n written b y an educated Hellenistic J e w to a group o r c h u r c h c o m p o s e d o f Jewish believers w h o s e world is fall­ ing a p a r t .

49

T h e i r past has included public humiliation, i m p r i s o n m e n t ,

a n d seizure o f property, w h i c h indicate the s h a m e o f weakness and vulnerability within t h e society a n d a r e c o r d o f conflict with governing officials.

50

Now, t h e recipients appear t o b e in m o r t a l danger. T h e y are

clearly u n d e r pressure ( 1 0 : 2 2 - 3 9 ) , where they have not yet e x p e r i e n c e d b l o o d s h e d ( H e b 12:4). T h e portrayal o f h u m a n s "held in slavery by their fear o f death" ( H e b 2 : 1 5 ) , a n d t h e different aspects o f death that d o m i ­ nate ch. 11 indicate m o r t a l danger where the recipients are desperately in n e e d o f m e r c y and grace in their "time o f need" ( H e b 4 : 1 6 ) .

51

The

author believes that t h e y are in danger o f hardening their hearts ( H e b 3 : 7 - 1 9 ) b y rejecting t h e i r spiritual foundation ( H e b 5 : 1 1 — 6 : 6 ) , regress­ ing in growth ( H e b 6 : 7 - 1 2 ) o r s i n n i n g and rejecting G o d in their crisis ( H e b 1 0 : 2 6 - 3 9 ) . W h a t k i n d o f crisis c o u l d b e threatening the readers? T w o g o o d suggestions for t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e readers are an i m ­ m i n e n t p e r s e c u t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n s l o c a t e d in R o m e ,

5 2

o r the i m p e n d ­

ing v i o l e n c e and destruction and the subsequent disruption o f Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s in t h e E a s t e r n E m p i r e resulting from t h e Jewish uprising in Palestine and t h e suppression o f t h e revolt b y the R o m a n Imperial A r m y b e t w e e n 6 7 and 7 3 C E .

5 3

E i t h e r c h o i c e indicates that the c o n t e x t

49. See Lane, Hebrews 1-8, lxi. See also Lane, "Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting," 16. 50. Luke Timothy Johnson notes their experience of shame and real physical suffer­ ing (Johnson, Hebrews, 33-38). 51. For the aspects of death that dominate ch. 11, see Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 256-57. 52. The location of the recipients in Rome comes from Heb 13:24: "Those from Italy send you their greetings." For an argument for a Roman destination, see Lane who sug­ gests the edict of Claudius in 49 CE as the occasion (Lane, Hebrews 1-8, lxiii-lxvi). See also, for example, Bruce, Hebrews, 3-14. However, there are several other contexts that could account for this phrase, including the location of the author. It is difficult to believe that a Roman Christian community would be so totally disrupted as to lose all information about the epistle. 53. Attridge notes that a Palestinian location was the common opinion of ancient commentators and is now defended by many "moderns" (Attridge, Hebrews, 9). While the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, Masada was not captured until 73 CE. Jewish communities were under attack, not only from the army, but also from lo­ cal populations in the Eastern Empire. Jewish Christians would not be distinguished from other Jews as targets. The circumstances that caused the loss and recovery of the existence and location of the Dead Sea Scrolls offer a possible parallel.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

249

o f H e b r e w s anticipated a confrontation with t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e subsequent confrontation presumably was disruptive e n o u g h to cause t h e loss o f all i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e epistle so that there was n o tradition c o n n e c t e d with it—one assumes that R o m e w o n t h e e n c o u n t e r insofar as t h e c h u r c h did n o t survive to tell t h e tale. S u c h disruption would b e m o r e likely l i n k e d to t h e disastrous i m p a c t o f t h e revolt a n d suppression t h a n p e r s e c u t i o n in R o m e o r t h e expulsion o f the Jews. However, H e b r e w s does n o t counter-attack t h e R o m a n E m p i r e directly. Rather, the author redefines t h e reader s existence so that t h e R o m a n E m p i r e does n o t define reality for t h e believer. David deSilva has d o n e a s o c i o - r h e t o r i c a l c o m m e n t a r y o n Hebrews a n d outlined t h e rhetorical strategy where, a m o n g o t h e r things, h e describes h o w t h e au­ t h o r is insulating t h e c o m m u n i t y f r o m society's pressure.

54

As described

above, h o n o r a n d s h a m e were the p r i m a r y tools o f social c o n t r o l in t h e ancient world. T h e author challenges t h e s h a m e o f their past experiences, first b y giving t h e m w o r t h y m o d e l s w h o c h o s e a lower status (aliens a n d s o j o u r n e r s ) for t h e sake o f attaining m o r e lasting h o n o r a n d advantages, n a m e l y t h e p r o m i s e s o f G o d ( H e b 1 0 : 3 2 — 1 2 : 2 ) . S e c o n d , t h e writer does it b y reinterpreting the hostility o f t h e unbelievers in a m o r e h o n o r a b l e light for t h e persecuted: " T h e believers' e x p e r i e n c e s o f ridicule, trial, loss o f status a n d property, a n d e n d u r a n c e o f c o n t i n u e d reproach [are s e e n ] as God's training o r discipline o f his adopted children" a n d part o f their p a r t n e r s h i p with Christ ( 1 2 : 1 - 1 1 ) .

5 5

However, probably t h e m o s t powerful t o o l the author utilizes is i m ­ agery o r metaphor, where h e places t h e believers' e x i s t e n c e in t h e u n s e e n heavenly k i n g d o m . T h e nature o f t h e i m a g e r y indicates that the readers are facing m o r e t h a n s h a m e a n d pressure. T h e believers are placed in t h e heavenly t a b e r n a c l e , a n d their life is depicted as r u n n i n g a race in t h e m i d d l e o f a festival assembly o f all t h e righteous and heavenly b e ­ ings l o c a t e d in heavenly Jerusalem. In t h e central section o f t h e epistle ( 4 : 1 1 — 1 0 : 2 5 ) , t h e author h a s reframed t h e readers, existence b y explain­ ing t h e heavenly realities t h r o u g h the institutions o f Judaism. T h e priest­ h o o d , t h e t a b e r n a c l e , t h e covenant, a n d the law are used to describe Jesus' p r i e s t h o o d , t h e heavenly t a b e r n a c l e , the n e w covenant, a n d t h e internal law. T h e familiar i c o n s o f their religious history "are vehicles that c a r r y t h e readers f r o m t h e familiar physical a n d material o b j e c t s a n d events o f 54. deSilva, Perseverance, 64-68. 55. Ibid., 67.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

250

their heritage to the uriseen realities b e h i n d t h e m , and ultimately into the 56

presence o f G o d . " T h e y are to follow Jesus into the heavenly tabernacle ( 1 0 : 1 9 - 2 2 ) and their worship o f praise and their godly actions towards others b e c o m e their priestly sacrifice ( 1 2 : 2 8 ; 1 3 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) .

5 7

T h e believers'

struggles and service are viewed as an athletic contest and priestly m i n ­ istry in t h e c o n t e x t o f their location in the invisible heavenly k i n g d o m o f G o d ( 1 2 : 1 - 2 9 ) . In the light o f the believers'reception o f such a k i n g d o m , and o n the basis o f Jesus' suffering "outside the camp," t h e y are to "go to h i m outside the c a m p , b e a r i n g t h e disgrace he bor e. F o r we do n o t have an e n d u r i n g city, but we are l o o k i n g for the city that is to c o m e " ( H e b 13:13-14). T h e author has equipped t h e readers to negotiate their relationship with a hostile empire a n d the m o u n t i n g hostility o f Judaism. T h e injunc­ tion near t h e e n d to go to Jesus outside o f the c a m p and b e a r t h e disgrace that he b o r e o c c u r s with an assertion that believers have an altar that the Jewish priests (those w h o m i n i s t e r at the tabernacle) have n o right to a c ­ cess. This would indicate a certain separation o f Jewish Christians from Judaism due to increased hostility from the Jews, h e n c e t h e believers share in Jesus' disgrace. I f the c o n t e x t for Hebrews is located in o r near Palestine b e t w e e n the revolt and the destruction o f the temple, this is exactly what happened. Jewish Christians refused to take part in the re­ volts, w h e t h e r out o f teaching o n n o n - v i o l e n c e or the warnings to flee to t h e hills in t h e Olivet D i s c o u r s e (Matt 2 4 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) . Consequently, tensions increased b e t w e e n Christianity and Judaism that led to the "Parting o f t h e Ways." Jewish Christians were placed in a vulnerable and untenable position b e t w e e n rising Jewish opposition to Christianity and R o m a n retaliation against Jews that spread t h r o u g h o u t the empire. As the people o f faith in Hebrews 11 exemplify, t h e y are never to find their status in the society o f the R o m a n E m p i r e — i n s t e a d t h e y are foreigners a n d strangers w h o have found a c o u n t r y o f their o w n that will not b e shaken, and w h o have a city "already and n o t yet" that rivals R o m e and replaces the earthly Jerusalem. T h e c l i m a x o f the chapter o n faith indicates that the ultimate examples o f faith are the people w h o were tortured, j e e r e d and flogged, 56. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 241. 57. The fact that the center of worship is always called the "tabernacle" is significant, and the discussion of the temple as a political force is relevant to Hebrews. The con­ temporary reader assumes a separation between church and state that was not true in the ancient world. For a discussion of the political nature of temples, see Carter, Roman Empire, 64-82.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

i m p r i s o n e d in c h a i n s , stoned, sawn in two, without clothes, destitute, p e r s e c u t e d , mistreated, a n d h o m e l e s s : t h e world was n o t w o r t h y o f t h e m ( H e b 1 1 : 3 6 - 3 8 ) . As far as resistance t o t h e e m p i r e goes, t h e a r g u m e n t o f H e b r e w s is geared t o equip t h e believer t o resist sin a n d e n d u r e o p ­ position f r o m t h e R o m a n E m p i r e t o t h e point o f shedding b l o o d ( 1 2 : 4 ) . R o m e h a s b e e n d e n i e d t h e privilege o f defining reality for believers a n d is stripped o f t h e clout o f its m i l i t a r y p o w e r over a n y o n e w h o values t h e i r loyalty t o Jesus over their o w n life.

REVELATION CONFRONTING THE EMPIRE U n l i k e t h e G e n e r a l Epistles a n d Hebrews, Revelation h a s b e e n central in t h e e m p i r e genre. Revelation h a s a plethora o f references a n d i m a g ­ e r y that t h e readers would have u n d e r s t o o d as referring to t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , so o n l y b r o a d generalizations will serve here in this b r i e f s u m ­ mary. Revelation c o n f r o n t s t h e e m p i r e at m a n y o f t h e s a m e points as e a c h o f t h e general epistles, r u n n i n g t h e gamut o f different facets o f re­ sistance that are particularly p o r t r a y e d in t h e letters t o t h e seven c h u r c h ­ es. However, Revelation also dramatically confronts t h e military p o w e r o f R o m e directly. T h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d R o m e is finally "gloves o f f " — a n d I use t h e w o r d "finally" b e c a u s e Revelation is l o c a t e d o n a t r a j e c t o r y that represents n o t o n l y Christianity's alienation a n d resistance t o empire, but t h e p e c u l i a r plight o f Jewish Christianity. Revelation is t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t d o c u m e n t that is m o s t critical o f t h e empire, a n d c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y o f r e c e n t scholars t o b e written at t h e e n d o f t h e first century. T h e last quarter o f t h e first c e n ­ t u r y was c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y i n c r e a s i n g pressure o n Christianity, b u t par­ ticularly o n Jewish Christianity. Jewish Christianity was caught in t h e crossfire o f hostility f r o m Jews, t h e official actions a n d policies o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e towards b o t h C h r i s t i a n s a n d Jews, and unofficial public hostility. A s J o h n R i c h e s argues, t h e temple's destruction in 7 0 C E was a "massive s h o c k " t o t h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y , followed b y "an urgent n e e d t o strengthen a n d support their c o m m u n i t y ' s sense o f identity." T h i s was "an acute c r i s i s . . . clearly precipitated b y t h e loss o f o n e o f t h e k e y m a r k ­ 58

ers o f Jewish identity: t h e T e m p l e a n d its cult." W h a t e v e r t h e attitude o f t h e Jewish author o f Revelation toward t h e temple, t h e ripple effects o f its d e s t r u c t i o n affected every J e w in t h e empire b y association with t h e

58. Riches, introduction," 1.

251

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

252

c o m m u n i t y , i f n o t h i n g else. O n e o f t h o s e ripple effects was a growing alienation, rejection, a n d eviction o f t h e Jewish Christians w h o were still living in Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s all over the empire, and even attending Jewish synagogues. This provides the c o n t e x t for the scathing phrase "the synagogue o f Satan w h o say t h e y are Jews but are not" ( R e v 2:9; 3 : 9 ) . In addition to Jewish hostility, t h e Jewish Christians were t h e tar­ gets o f imperial a n d public hostility towards Jews. T h e R o m a n v i c t o r y in Palestine was followed b y retaliatory policies including punitive t a x a ­ tion that were i m p o s e d o n all Jews, and b e i n g a Jewish Christian hardly m a d e o n e exempt. B e c a u s e o f its peculiar position o f b e i n g marginalized b y the Jewish c o m m u n i t y , t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , and eventually G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s w h o would require Jewish Christians to c o n f o r m to G e n t i l e Christianity, the voice o f Jewish Christianity in Revelation represents faith o n the m a r g i n s better t h a n in any o t h e r N e w Testament b o o k . Pressure to worship the emperor, and persecution from b o t h the d o m i n a n t society and Judaism, had picked up generally and are reflected in the letters to the seven churches. J o h n was in exile in P a t m o s as a result o f R o m a n authority,

59

and several passages in Revelation indi­

cate that believers had suffered from c o u r t trials and m a r t y r d o m ( R e v 2 : 1 3 ; 6 : 9 - 1 1 ; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 2 0 : 4 ) . J o h n also anticipated persecution ( 2 : 1 0 ; 3 : 1 0 ) , but that m a y indicate a wave o f public p o l i c y e m a n a t i n g from R o m e that had n o t yet reached the recipients in Asia M i n o r , o r it had n o t yet b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d b y t h e local officials. M o s t likely, the D o m i t i a n p e r s e c u t i o n s (reign 8 1 - 9 6 C E ) were the precipitating crisis o r the close c o n t e x t for Revelation, and certainly the attacks from N e r o (reign 5 4 - 6 8 C E ) cast a long shadow over the a u t h o r s e x p e r i e n c e o f R o m e and E m p i r e . Revelation is a c o m b i n a t i o n o f genres: epistolary, prophetic, and apocalyptic in its nature, t h o u g h n o t p s e u d o n y m o u s . As a letter, it was written possibly as a circular letter to seven churches in Asia M i n o r : Ephesus, S m y r n a , P e r g a m u m , Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and L a o d i c e a . It is in the direct address to the recipients that the author highlights his p r i m a r y c o n c e r n s that are addressed in t h e rest o f the b o o k — t h e follow-

59. Cassidy qualifies the professed exile by Roman authority as "distinctly possible" (Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 106). However, any exile for the sake of the gos­ pel at this point would indicate that it was under the auspices of Roman government. Perhaps Cassidy allows that the exile could be by a local authority, but the local elite is considered here to be part of the Roman system of authority.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

253

ing p r o p h e c y is completely relevant to the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , p r o b l e m s , a n d n e e d s o f t h e seven c h u r c h e s that are articulated in Revelation 2 - 3 . T h e author is c o n c e r n e d about all o f the issues o f conflict with t h e empire that H e b r e w s a n d t h e G e n e r a l Epistles confront and m o r e . T h e r e m a r k s to t h e seven c h u r c h e s d e m o n s t r a t e a serious c o n c e r n with pressure a n d c o m p r o m i s e including issues o f poverty ( R e v 2 : 8 - 9 ) , materialism ( R e v 3 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , attacks t h r o u g h slander, rejection, persecution, i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d m a r t y r d o m ( R e v 2 : 9 b - 1 0 , 1 3 ) , idolatry ( R e v 2:14b, 2 0 b ) , a n d sexual i m m o r a l i t y ( R e v 2:14a, 2 0 - 2 3 ) .

6 0

T h e s e issues are addressed t h r o u g h ­

out t h e subsequent p r o p h e c y primarily b y its barely veiled i n d i c t m e n t o f a n d prediction o f future destruction o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e a n d t h e v i c t o r y a n d sovereignty o f G o d and Jesus C h r i s t over all c o m p e t i t i o n . J o h n s pervasive use o f O l d T e s t a m e n t allusions brings forward n o t o n l y t h e Judaic e x p e c t a t i o n s o f deliverance a n d the D a y o f t h e Lord, b u t also associate t h e R o m a n E m p i r e with t h e line o f imperial p o w e r a n d oppres­ sion t h r o u g h o u t the O l d Testament, specifically including B a b y l o n , b u t also o t h e r empires such as Assyria, G r e e c e , a n d Persia. Revelation is apocalyptic in t h e use o f c o m p o s i t i o n a l styles, w h i c h include a narrative framework, recapitulation, dualism, angelic m e ­ diation, c o m p l e x imagery, a n d the extensive use o f s y m b o l s including numerology. T h e genre h a d b e e n popular for approximately three h u n ­ dred years, a n d examples include 2 Enoch, Scrolls, 4 Ezra,

2 Baruch

selections f r o m the D e a d S e a

a n d Sib. Or. 5, a n d also parts o f Ezekiel a n d

61

D a n i e l . A c c o r d i n g to Paul H a n s o n , the use o f the apocalyptic genre o c ­ curs within an oppressive social, political, a n d e c o n o m i c situation w h e n "any effort at reform b a s e d o n the standards o f j u s t i c e a n d c o m p a s s i o n associated with G o d s reign are repulsed b y violence a n d persecution."

62

It is political b y nature, a n d often t h e s y m b o l i s m is a cryptic c o d e d m e s ­ sage o f h o p e a n d liberation that is written in such an o b s c u r e way that it shields t h e true m e a n i n g from t h e oppressors.

63

However, J o h n s refer­

e n c e s to R o m e are transparent, a n d probably t h e genre is used for its 60. Again, notice the close association of sexual immorality and idolatry. 61. See a discussion of the apocalyptic roots of Revelation in Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling Empire, 46-86. See also Collins, "Apocalyptic Literature." 62. Hanson, "Prophetic and Apocalyptic Politics," 57. 63. This is Norman Becks more general definition of "cryptograms," which are more general symbols that he finds throughout the New Testament (Beck, Anti-Roman Cryptograms). See Becks analysis of the background and content of Revelation in 133-39.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

254

"intrinsic evocative power" rather than to keep the criticism o f R o m e secret.

64

W h o c o u l d miss the reference to the w h o r e o f B a b y l o n sitting

o n seven hills ( R e v 1 7 : 9 ) ?

65

T h e readers were used to n u m e r o l o g y and

probably interpreted t h e n u m b e r o f the beast ( 6 6 6 ) as referring to N e r o ( R e v 1 3 : 1 8 ) , perhaps indicating that N e r o s c r i m e s were b e i n g repeated b y D o m i t i a n so as to identify h i m as a type o f N e r o .

66

B u t m o r e than that,

in a c o n t e x t w h e r e R o m e was considered to b e eternal and invincible, all o f the references to social, political, e c o n o m i c , and military power would have b e e n read in a R o m a n context. T h e i m a g e r y a n d s y m b o l s o f the p r o p h e c y would have b e e n under­ s t o o d b y t h e readers a n d the R o m a n authorities as criticism o f R o m e , a n d t h e prediction o f its destruction c a m e at the height o f its p o w e r .

67

The

criticism includes R o m a n e c o n o m i c exploitation and materialism ( R e v 13:6; ch. 1 8 ) , p e r s e c u t i o n and m a r t y r d o m o f believers, as well as general violence toward h u m a n i t y ( R e v 6 : 9 - 1 0 ; 16:6; 17:6; 1 8 : 2 4 ) , and b l a s p h e m y and idolatry ( w h i c h are associated with sexual i m m o r a l i t y ) ( R e v 1 3 : 5 - 6 ; 13:12b-14; 18:7b).

68

Therefore, the responsibility for the challenges that

t h e seven c h u r c h e s faced is placed on the R o m a n E m p i r e and the origin o f t h e e m p i r e was d e m o n i c ( R e v 1 2 : 9 - 1 7 ; 13:2b, 4 ) . G o d responds to Rome's abuses with a series o f destructions including earthquake, fire, plague, famine, internal conflict, violence, and Christ at the head o f a heavenly army. T h e c l i m a x o f the predictions o f Rome's destruction o c ­ curs in t h e l a m e n t in Revelation 18: "Fallen! Fallen is B a b y l o n the Great!" ( R e v 18:2). A catalogue o f R o m e s c r i m e s as the political and e c o n o m i c h u b o f the "earth" follows. Imperial triumphalistic t h e o l o g y and power is pitted directly against t h e power, sovereignty, and v i c t o r y o f G o d in Christ. T h e y are c o m p e t i n g k i n g d o m s with conflicting claims. The seven c h u r c h e s are called to resist the R o m a n E m p i r e on every front in w h i c h t h e y are challenged without c o m p r o m i s e . T h e y are n o t called to guerilla warfare o r a c c o m m o d a t i o n to the evils o f the culture,

64. So states Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 124. See also Beck, Anti-Roman Cryp­ tograms, 138-39. 65. As Aune, Revelation 17-22,944-45, a metaphor for Rome."

states, it "would be instantly recognizable as

66. See David Aune's discussion in Revelation 6-16,770-73. 67. See Collins, "Satan's Throne." 68. See Cassidy s brief description of Revelations criticism of Rome in Christians and Roman Rule, 109-14.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

but t o t h e salvation that lies with G o d alone. Loyalty t o G o d involves o v e r c o m i n g t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e hardships, p e r s e c u t i o n , suffering a n d death, n o t tolerating w i c k e d n e s s , idolatry a n d sexual immorality, a n d fleeing o r " c o m i n g out" o f t h e p o w e r structures a n d m a t e r i a l i s m o f R o m e : Come out of her, my people, So that you do not share in her sins, So that you will not receive any of her plagues. For her sins are piled up to heaven, And God will remember her crimes. (Rev 18:4-5) The seven c h u r c h e s are offered h o p e a n d liberation b y t h e apocalyp­ tic m e s s a g e , b u t p e r h a p s n o t in t h e way we w o u l d intuitively e x p e c t . A l o n g with p r o m i s e s t o t h o s e w h o o v e r c o m e , there is a radical call t o r e p e n t a n c e , a n d a disturbing r e c o g n i t i o n that believers are caught up in e n t a n g l i n g alliances with t h e empire. T h e resistance t o R o m e b e g i n s with s e l f - e x a m i n a t i o n a n d self-denial o f t h e c h u r c h e s as a w h o l e a n d individuals w i t h i n t h e c h u r c h e s in t h e areas o f m a t e r i a l i s m , v i o l e n c e , idolatry, a n d i m m o r a l i t y (cf. R e v 2 2 : 1 0 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e is n o t r i u m p h a l i s t i c escape f r o m suffering, p e r s e c u t i o n , a n d possible death in this life, t h e r e is o n l y loyalty t o G o d at any price. W h i l e t h e readers w o u l d have u n d e r s t o o d t h e p r o p h e c y as refer­ ring t o t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , it is clear that t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g o f Jesus did n o t o c c u r with t h e e n d o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . S o m e have c o n c l u d e d that R o m e c o u l d n o t have b e e n t h e referent o f t h e prophecy, a n d virtually e a c h generation has suggested its o w n identity o f t h e b e a s t / a n t i c h r i s t , a n d declared t h e previous g e n e r a t i o n as m i s t a k e n . However, t h e m e s s a g e is m o r e a b o u t e n c o u r a g e m e n t t o believers a n d h o w t h e y r e s p o n d t o t h e pressures that t h e y f a c e — R e v e l a t i o n is particularly written t o give h o p e t o people w h o are besieged, marginalized, a n d oppressed. R o m e repre­ sents oppressive u n g o d l y p o w e r w h e r e v e r it is located. T h e believers' r e s p o n s e t o injustice, p e r s e c u t i o n , immorality, idolatry, a n d w i c k e d n e s s should b e n o compromise.

CONCLUSION Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y m a y provide t h e clearest resistance t o t h e R o m a n E m p i r e in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . It drew directly f r o m t h e traditions o f J u d a i s m a n d t h e relationship o f J u d a i s m with t h e past e m p i r e s including Egypt, Assyria, B a b y l o n , Persia, a n d G r e e c e . Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y o c c u p i e d

255

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

an increasingly difficult position as hostility built b e t w e e n the R o m a n E m p i r e and Christianity, pressure built between the R o m a n E m p i r e and Judaism, and alienation built between Jewish Christians and Jews. Therefore, t h e challenges that Jewish Christianity faced and addressed are particularly informative in understanding h o w the early Christians resisted the pressures from the R o m a n Empire. J a m e s addressed e c o ­ n o m i c issues including exploitation, materialism, and poverty; 1 Peter secured h o n o r and dignity for t h e powerless; 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2 , and 3 J o h n stressed t h e ethics and values that set G o d s k i n g d o m apart; and Hebrews challenged t h e R o m a n view o f reality and k i n g d o m . Revelation addressed t h e s p e c t r u m o f issues in the o t h e r b o o k s , but was sharpened b y p e r s e c u t i o n and m a r t y r d o m . J o h n held the R o m a n E m p i r e responsible for idolatry, blasphemy, sexual immorality, persecution, exploitation, and materialism. T h e R o m a n E m p i r e was described as in c o m p e t i t i o n with G o d s sovereignty and would b e destroyed. T h e b e l i e v e r s response to an oppressive empire begins with personal repentance that disassociates from t h e patterns o f abuse and includes non-violent active resistance. Positively, believers find their position, value, and reality in t h e k i n g d o m of God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtemeier, P. J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Adamson, The Epistle of James. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Alfoldy, Geza. The Social History of Rome. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1985. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Aune, David E. Revelation 6-16. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. . Revelation 17-22. WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 1993. Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. SBLMS 26. Atlanta: Scholars, 1981. Barton, S. C. "Social Values and Structures." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 1127-34. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Beck, Norman A. Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation. New York: Lang, 1997. Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997. . Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter. SBLDS 160. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.

W E S T F A L L — R u n n i n g the

Gamut

Carter, W. "Proclaiming (in/against) Empire Then and Now." Word &World 25.2 (2005) 149-58. . The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Cassidy, Richard J. Christians and Roman Rule in the New Testament: New Perspectives. Companions to the New Testament. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Charles, J. D. "Vice and Virtue Lists." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 1252-57. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. . "Satan's Throne: Revelations from Revelation." BAR 32.3 (May/June 2006) 2 6 39. Collins, J. J. "Apocalyptic Literature." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 40-45. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Davids, Peter. The Epistle of James. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. deSilva, David A. "Honor and Shame." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 518-22. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. . Patronage" In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 766-71. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. . Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Duling, Dennis C. "Empire: Theories, Methods, Models." In The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John Riches and David C. Sim, 49-74. JSNTSup 276. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2005. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. . Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990. Dyson, S. "Native Revolts in the Roman Empire." Historia 20 (1971) 239-74. Goppelt, Leonhard. Der Erste Petrusbrief. MeyerK. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Hanson, Paul D. "Prophetic and Apocalyptic Politics." In The Last Things: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Eschatology, edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, 43-66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Harrill, J. A. "Slavery." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 1124-27. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Howard-Brook, Wes, and Anthony Gwyther. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999. Jobes, Karen Η. 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Keener, Craig. Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993. . "Family and Household." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 353-68. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

257

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Lane,William L.Hebrews 1-8.WBC.Dallas: Word, 1991. . "Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting." SWJT2S (1985) 13-18. MacDonald, Margaret E. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. . "Slavery, Sexuality and House Churches." NTS 53 (2007) 94-113. Martin, Ralph P. James. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Martin, Troy W. Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. SBLDS 131. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Maynard-Reid, Pedrito U. Poverty and Wealth in James. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987. Riches, John. "Introduction." In The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John Riches and David C. Sim, 1-8. JSNTSup 276. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2005. Schroeder, David. Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 4. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Smalley, Steven S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. Strom, Mark. Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity,2000. Tamez, Elsa. The Scandalous Message of James: Faith without Works Is Dead. New York: Crossroad, 1985. Walsh, Brian J., and Sylvia Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. London: Τ. & T. Clark, 2005. . "The Hebrew Mission: Voices from the Margin?" In Christian Mission: Old Testament Foundations and New Testament Developments, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall, 187-207. MNTS. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. . "The Relationship between the Resurrection, the Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison and Baptismal Regeneration: 1 Peter 3.19-22." In Resurrection, edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, 106-35. JSNTSup 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

9 The Church Fathers and the Roman Empire

GORDON L . HEATH

I

N HIS RECENT BOOK o n t h e history o f t h e British E m p i r e , Empire: Rise and Demise

Power

of the British

World

Order and the Lessons for

The Global

( 2 0 0 3 ) , Niall Ferguson identifies obvious parallels b e t w e e n t h e

British E m p i r e at t h e p e a k o f its p o w e r a n d the U n i t e d States today. H e goes o n t o c l a i m "in truth, there is o n l y o n e power capable o f playing an i mpe rial role in t h e m o d e r n world, a n d that is t h e U n i t e d States. Indeed, 1

to s o m e degree it is already playing that role." Such parallels are interest­ ing, a n d t h e call for A m e r i c a to take up t h e m a n t l e o f imperial power— for t h e benefit o f t h e world—is highly provocative a n d c o n t e n t i o u s .

2

Just what is a Christian to t h i n k about empire? T h e essays in this b o o k are timely, for t h e y c o m p e l us to l o o k o n c e again at t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writings for guidance, texts that were written at the height o f o n e o f t h e greatest empires t h e world has ever seen. I c o n s i d e r it a privilege to b e able to present a b r i e f response to these provocative a n d insightful papers, but to b e honest, I also c o m e with fear a n d trepidation. I a m n o t a biblical scholar. I a m a historian. M y discipline is usually m o r e c o n c e r n e d with A c t s 2 9 a n d following t h a n with t h e contents o f t h e O l d a n d N e w Testaments. However, despite m y l a c k o f qualifications with

1. Ferguson, Empire, 367. 2. The following are just a few of the numerous works critiquing U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to notions of empire: Albright and Woodward, Mighty and the Almighty; Chapman, "Imperial Exegesis"; Mandelbaum, Case for Goliath; Northcott, Angel Directs the Storm; Singer, President of Good and Evil. 259

200

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

regards to the discipline o f biblical studies, I a m a historian interested in i m p e r i a l i s m and Christianity. B e c a u s e o f m y obvious bias for the study o f history, m y focus in this response will b e to survey briefly the earliest c h u r c h fathers' attitudes to 3

the R o m a n E m p i r e . M y rationale is simple: these papers m a k e specific claims about the biblical authors and empire. I want to use t h e c h u r c h fathers as a foil to the claims b e i n g m a d e in these essays, and to use the C h u r c h fathers' responses to empire as clues as to h o w t h e earliest Christians u n d e r s t o o d empire.

PRESENTATIONS W h i l e m u c h o f post-Holocaust N e w Testament studies has dealt with 4

Paul's relationship to J u d a i s m , a great deal o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y literature o n e m p i r e and the N e w Testament has b e e n shaped by p o s t - C h r i s t e n d o m attitudes and assumptions, as well as b y the breakup o f W e s t e r n empires. T h e disestablishment o f the church, a n d an increasingly p o s t - C h r i s t i a n Zeitgeist

in the West, has led to m a n y questioning the assumptions that

undergirded the old religious establishment. T h e postwar breakup o f E u r o p e a n empires, o n c e d e e m e d to b e providentially established to civi­ lize a n d Christianize the world, has also led to an o u t p o u r i n g o f Edward Said-like criticisms o f Western imperialism and even o f the idea o f e m ­ 5

pire itself. T h e rise and development o f Liberation T h e o l o g y and the emphasis on praxis

contributed to the growing c o n s e n s u s that the N e w

T e s t a m e n t Jesus could not b e used as a supporter o f repressive systems o r empires. In fact, it was claimed, revolutionaries had m o r e in c o m m o n with Jesus than did the powerful established churches. F o r instance, J o h n Howard Yoder notes in his The Politics

of Jesus

( 1 9 7 2 ) that the 1960s

radicals saw Jesus m o r e like themselves t h a n as a supporter o f the elites.

6

T h e t i m e was ripe for people to take a fresh n e w l o o k at Jesus, and to

3. I realize that there are numerous other texts that do not belong to the orthodox tradition, such as the various Gnostic writings. While many of those writings selfidentify as Christian, this response will not focus on them. Of course, the Gnostic view of empire would be an interesting topic for a future study. 4. See Horsley, Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 1-2. 5. Said, Orientalism, is a "classic" in post-colonial studies. 6. Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 11.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

261

p r o c l a i m a Jesus that was radically different from t h e d o m i n a n t o n e that h a d b e e n presented for over a t h o u s a n d years.

7

R e c e n t scholarship maintains this trajectory. O v e r the past two decades o r so, a n u m b e r o f b o o k s have b e e n published o n t h e R o m a n 8

E m p i r e a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . Klaus W e n g s t s Pax Romana Peace

of Jesus

Christ

and

k i n g d o m o f G o d challenged t h e assumptions o f t h e pax Romana. E l l i o t t s Liberating

the

( 1 9 8 7 ) p o i n t e d out that the i m m i n e n c e o f the

Paul: The Justice

of God and the Politics

of the

Neil Apostle

( 1 9 9 4 ) provocatively outlined t h e political implications o f P a u l s t h e o l ­ 9

ogy. M o r e recently, R i c h a r d H o r s l e y a n d W a r r e n C a r t e r

10

have led t h e

way with n u m e r o u s b o o k s a n d articles that explore the political implica­ t i ons o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f the N e w Testament. W i l l i a m R . H e r z o g I I , J o h n D o m i n i c C r o s s a n , J o n a t h a n L. R e e d , A n t h o n y Gwyther, W e s H o w a r d B r o o k , C h e d Myers, N o r m a n B e c k , G a r y Gilbert, R i c h a r d Cassidy, and n u m e r o u s others have also b e g u n t o take seriously the c o n t e n t i o n that t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writings have a great deal t o say about politics a n d empire, t h e n a n d now.

11

The p a p e r s in this v o l u m e c o n t i n u e this trajectory. W h i l e t h e y are c e r t a i n l y n o t as o u t s p o k e n as H o r s l e y w h e n h e c r i t i q u e s t h e "depoliticized Jesus o f A m e r i c a n i m p e r i a l c u l t u r e "

12

o r as i n f l a m m a t o r y as

Elliott w h e n h e refers t o t h e "Pauline l e g a c y as an i d e o l o g i c a l w e a p o n o f death,"

13

t h e y all agree that t h e c a n o n i c a l writings c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l

that addresses i m p e r i a l c o n c e r n s . T h e first two papers illustrate h o w e m p i r e b u i l d i n g for h u m a n a g g r a n d i z e m e n t was f r o w n e d u p o n in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t . T h e papers o n v a r i o u s N e w T e s t a m e n t b o o k s all argue

7. For instance, see Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots; Griffiths, New Testament and the Roman State. 8. Conferences have also dealt with the subject. For instance, the panel topic "Paul and the Roman Imperial Order" was a part of the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. 9. Horsley, ed., Paul and Empire; Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics; Horsley, Jesus and Empire; Horsley, ed., Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. 10. Carter, Matthew and Empire; Carter, Roman Empire. 11. Herzog, Parables; Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul; Gwyther and Howard-Brook, Unveiling Empire; Myers, Binding the Strong Man; Beck, Anti-Roman Cryptograms; Gilbert, "List of Nations"; Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule; Cassidy, Johns Gospel in New Perspective. 12. Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 148. 13. Elliott, Liberating Paul, 9.

202

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

that t h e r e is a great deal o f i m p e r i a l m a t e r i a l in t h e c a n o n i c a l writings, a n d s o m e c o n t e n d that, t o use t h e w o r d s o f Carter, t h e " R o m a n E m p i r e c o m p r i s e s n o t t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t b a c k g r o u n d but its f o r e g r o u n d " (p. 9 0 ) . T h e c l a i m s m a d e r a n g e from t h e biblical a u t h o r s m e r e l y us­ ing i m p e r i a l i m a g e r y t o express C h r i s t i a n c o n v i c t i o n s t o t h e b i b l i c a l a u t h o r s m a k i n g c o v e r t , subversive s t a t e m e n t s to u n d e r m i n e c l a i m s o f R o m a n h e g e m o n y (with s o m e papers arguing for a bit o f b o t h ) . B u t , as n o t e d above, m y i n t e n t i o n is t o e x a m i n e briefly t h e earliest c h u r c h fathers' view o f e m p i r e as a foil t o t h e s e c l a i m s .

THE C H U R C H FATHERS T h e typical "decline paradigm" in c h u r c h history is that the c h u r c h lost its pristine purity after E m p e r o r C o n s t a n t i n e s profession o f faith a n d t h e subsequent Christianization o f the R o m a n E m p i r e in t h e fourth c e n ­ tury. As n o t e d above, c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars a s s u m e and c l a i m that t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers were o p p o s e d to empire. B u t were t h e earliest C h r i s t i a n s as anti-empire as recent scholars claim? A n d was the sup­ portive posture towards the empire after C o n s t a n t i n e that m u c h o f a shift from the attitudes o f the earliest c h u r c h fathers about t h e empire? This response argues that, i f the c h u r c h fathers are any indication, in b o t h cases the answer is no. R o l a n d B a i n t o n notes that there was an e l e m e n t o f c r i t i c i s m o f R o m e in early Christian literature (he argues that this was o n e o f the reasons for early Christian pacifism). B u t that c r i t i c i s m did n o t include an outright rejection o f the benefits o f R o m a n rule. The Patristic judgment upon the empire was qualified.... Christian apologists, in order to parry the charge of calamity-bringing so often leveled against their religion, quarried in the classical literature which recorded and bemoaned Roman decadence. Tertullian and Minucius Felix took over from Horace the conten­ tion that the fratricide of Romulus had injected a virus of corrup­ tion into the Roman blood stream, while Lactantius borrowed from Sallust the theme that Rome by destroying Carthage lost the stimulus of rivalry and fell prey to dissension, cruelty, ambition, pursuit of luxury, and debauchery. The process by which Roman rule had been acquired was subjected to scathing denunciation. . . . At the same time, the early Church did not follow the book of

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

Revelation in identifying Rome with Antichrist. The blessings of the Roman peace were appreciated. 14

This appreciation that B a i n t o n is referring to was two centuries before C o n s t a n t i n e . T h e following two sections briefly illustrate the tension in t h e writings o f t h e c h u r c h fathers. As will b e seen below, there are examples that indicate that t h e y supported a n d appreciated the empire, but there are also examples that indicate that such appreciation did n o t m e a n that t h e y were blindly subservient to t h e imperial powers.

Supportive

of the

Empire

U S E OF M I L I T A R Y M E T A P H O R S

W h i l e it s e e m s that t h e N e w Testament ideal was n o n - v i o l e n c e ( M a t t 5 - 7 ) , t h e t r e a t m e n t o f R o m a n military personnel a n d t h e use o f m i l i ­ t a ry m e t a p h o r s is interesting. Jesus praised the centurion (Matt 8 : 5 - 1 3 ) , J o h n t h e Baptist did n o t order soldiers to quit service (Luke 3 : 1 4 ) , Peter baptized t h e c e n t u r i o n C o r n e l i u s (Acts 1 0 ) , a n d Paul was silent about t h e jailer w h o b e c a m e converted (Acts 1 6 ) . J o h n d e s c r i b e d visions o f war ( a n d a violent C h r i s t at that) in Revelation. Paul used m e t a p h o r s o f soldiers in E p h 6 : 1 0 - 1 7 a n d 2 T i m 2 : 3 . As H a r n a c k notes, there are n u m e r o u s m i l i t a r y references in the earliest Christian writings: We find in the earliest Christian writings all of the following: the soldier, weapons of various kinds, wages (cf. the serious word of Rom. 6:23,"The wages of sin is death"), discipline, the wreath, gifts (donativa), imprisonment, pillage, fortification, bulwark, military onslaughts, and the heretics, who like cunning foes sneak into the houses and take away women as captives (2 Tim. 3:6). 15

C l e m e n t o f R o m e (ca. 9 5 - 1 0 0 C E ) c o n t i n u e d the use o f military m e t a ­ phors. In 1 Clement

h e urged his Christian audience to "act t h e part

o f soldiers" w h o served u n d e r g e n e r a l s .

16

C l e m e n t o f Alexandria (ca.

1 5 0 - 2 1 5 ) used t h e military m e t a p h o r "soldiers o f p e a c e "

17

a n d referred

14. Bainton, Historical Survey, 74-75. 15. Harnack, Militia Christi, 39. 16. I Clem. 37. Unless noted otherwise, all references in footnotes to early Christian writings below are from Roberts and Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers. 17. Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 11.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

to Jesus as t h e "great G e n e r a l " and " C o m m a n d e r - i n - c h i e f "

18

Tertullian

(ca. 1 5 5 - c a . 2 4 0 ) paralleled the Christian life with life in the R o m a n 19

military.

These references did not create a militaristic c o m m u n i t y that acted out the violent images o f Revelation: t h e earliest Christians did n o t take up the sword w h e n persecuted. Nevertheless, A d o l f H a r n a c k argues that this use o f military i m a g e r y had a logic o f its own and shaped o p i n i o n s and attitudes over the centuries. At the very least, it s e e m s that these references indicate that there was n o t an outright rejection o r c o n d e m ­ nation o f R o m a n imperial military life. R E F E R E N C E S TO T H E O L D T E S T A M E N T

T h e essays presented here from the O l d Testament argue that t h e e x ­ ample o f David and the teaching o f the prophet Isaiah are decidedly anti-empire. W h i l e that m a y b e the case, Tertullian used O l d Testament examples to provide guidance for working within an imperial cont ext , n o t to c o n d e m n the idea o f imperialism o r the political reality o f t h e empire.

20

R o m a n rule and R o m a n military life were considered b y Tertullian to b e riddled with idolatry, and h e considered such idolatry to b e a "prin­ 21

cipal c r i m e o f the h u m a n race." In On Idolatry

he provided instruction

for Christians in the midst o f pagan festivals by pointing out s o m e O l d Testament examples o f people w h o lived in a similar context. Tertullian pointed to Shadrach, M e s h a c h , and A b e d n e g o in B a b y l o n w h o were o b e ­ dient to the ruler but drew the line at idolatry.

22

H e also n o t e d D a n i e l s

submission to Darius, as long as h e could b e free in the p r a c t i c e o f his 23

religion. T h e general principle was that Christians should b e subject to "magistrates, princes and powers" so long as they kept themselves "sepa18. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 8. 19. Tertullian, Mart. 3. 20. While the example provided here is from Tertullian and his concern for idolatry, Clement of Alexandria's praise for Moses' prowess as a great military leader is another example of how the Old Testament was not necessarily read for its anti-imperial senti­ ments. See Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.24. Louis J. Swift notes that Old Testament references to God-sanctioned warfare made it difficult for the church fathers to reject all forms of warfare. See Swift, Early Fathers on War, 20-21. 21. Tertullian, Idol. 1. 22. Ibid., 15. 23. Ibid.

H E A T H — T h e Church rate from idolatry."

24

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

I n regards to what offices Christians c o u l d hold,

Tertullian p o i n t e d out that while t h e Patriarchs Joseph o r D a n i e l m a y have served kings without c o m m i t t i n g idolatry, it would b e very h a r d to do so in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e .

25

Nevertheless, h e did n o t completely rule

out t h e possibility. POSITIVE ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS

T h e above examples suggest an attitude to the empire that was n o t explic­ itly hostile. Even taking into a c c o u n t rhetorical flourish a n d apologetic 26

a i m s , the following examples o f overt actions and statements show that the earliest c h u r c h fathers ( a n d at least s o m e early C h r i s t i a n s ) h a d quite a positive view o f t h e empire. O n e i m p o r t a n t piece o f evidence to consider is t h e a c c o u n t o f Christians serving in t h e R o m a n army, and the response o f the c h u r c h fathers t o such service. C e r t a i n l y n o t all Christians supported such a practice, least o f all Tertullian w h o wrote On the Crown

against such a

practice. Before t h e 1 7 0 s there is n o evidence o f Christians serving in t h e R o m a n Army. S i n c e slaves could n o t serve in t h e army, n o r c o u l d Jews, o n e c a n see w h y t h e early church, c o m p o s e d largely o f Jews, slaves, a n d w o m e n , did n o t have to confront the p r o b l e m o f Christians in the army.

27

B y t h e 170s, however, there is an a c c o u n t o f Christians serving

in t h e " T h u n d e r i n g Legion" o f M a r c u s Aurelius. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical

History

28

T h e story is told b y

o f h o w Christians in the legion

prayed a n d t h e a r m y was rescued b y a t h u n d e r s t o r m ( o t h e r a c c o u n t s say

24. Ibid. 25. Ibid., 17. 26. For a discussion of the uses of rhetoric among the church fathers, see Sider, Ancient Rhetoric; Kinzig, "Greek Christian Writers"; Satterthwaite, "Latin Church Fathers." 27. Cadoux, Early Christian Attitude to War, 16. During this time Christians were also too small a movement to even begin to think about being in a position of power and influence, and thus had no need to determine their view on the subject. See Swift, Early Fathers on War, 29. 28. Edward Ryan argues that the changing conditions in the empire (large-scale military operations, declining population that made recruits scarce, Rome on the de­ fensive, and everything being at stake) led to pressure on Christians to serve. See Ryan, "Rejection of Military Service," 12.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

266

29

an Egyptian m a g i c i a n saved t h e a r m y ) . T h e c o l u m n o f M a r c u s Aurelius contains the a c c o u n t o f the T h u n d e r i n g L e g i o n .

30

As n o t e d above, Tertullian argued in On the Crown

against service

in t h e military (his p r i m a r y o b j e c t i o n was that there was t o o m u c h idolatry in t h e military for a C h r i s t i a n to serve). However, C l e m e n t o f Alexandria stated that after conversion, soldiers, like sailors a n d farmers, were to c o n t i n u e in their service a n d o b e y their c o m m a n d e r .

31

Here we

have two opposing statements b y two c h u r c h fathers. B y t h e third c e n t u r y n u m e r o u s a c c o u n t s o f military m a r t y r s such as Marinus (260), Maximilian (295),Marcellus (298),Dasius (303),Tipasius the Veteran ( 3 0 3 ) , and Julius t h e Veteran ( 3 0 3 ) indicate the increasing n u m b e r s o f Christians serving in the army. M i l i t a r y inscriptions also indicate that Christians served in t h e a r m y prior to C o n s t a n t i n e .

32

In these cases it appears that s o m e Christians did not see t h e N e w Testament as b e i n g necessarily anti-empire. W h i l e their p r e s e n c e in the military m a y have led to criticism, t h e c h u r c h fathers' statements o n the blessings o f empire and the necessity o f Christian support for the e m p i r e n o doubt contributed to the c o n v i c t i o n that it was acceptable to serve in the army. It is to these statements that we n o w turn. C l e m e n t o f R o m e stated that Christians were loyal to t h e e m p e r o r and empire and prayed for stability and for w i s d o m for t h e e m p e r o r .

33

Polycarp declared that the imperial rulers were "ordained o f G o d " and needed to b e h o n o r e d .

34

Justin M a r t y r (ca. 1 0 0 - c a . 1 6 5 ) stated that

Christians were loyal citizens and prayed for the e m p e r o r .

35

Irenaeus

(ca. 1 3 0 - c a . 2 0 0 ) stated that the ruling authorities were established b y

29. Eusebius, Hist, eccl. 5.5. 30. For further discussion of this account, see Fowden, "Pagan Versions"; Rubin, "Weather Miracles." 31. Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 10. 32. Helgeland, "Christians in the Roman Army," 161. 33. 1 Clem. 60-61. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers set does not have 60-61—see Clarke, First Epistle of Clement.) "[GJrant that we may be obedient to thy almighty and excel­ lent name, and to our governors and rulers on earth. Thou, Lord, hast given them the authority of the Kingdom by thy excellent and unutterable might, that we . . . may be subject to them, in no respect opposing thy will. To them, Lord, grant health, peace, con­ cord, stability, that they may administer the rule given them by thee without offence." 34. Mart. Pol. 10. 35. Justin, 1 Apol. 17.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

G o d , a n d that all m u s t s u b m i t to their authority.

36

Empire

H e also c l a i m e d that

G o d h a d established such authorities due to the n e e d t o restrain sin, a n d gave t h e sword to t h e governing authorities so that t h e fear o f the sword w o u l d b r i n g a b o u t a degree o f justice. Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner, so that under the fear of human rule, men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down an excess of wicked­ ness among the nations. And considered from this point of view, those who exact tribute from us are "God s ministers, serving for this very purpose." 37

This a r g u m e n t , it should b e noted, was m a d e in response to G n o s t i c claims that t h e powers o f t h e w o r l d — R o m e included—were created b y the devil. Irenaeus o p p o s e d such a view a n d defended the position that G o d h a d established ruling a u t h o r i t i e s — R o m e included—and b e c a u s e o f that t h e y m u s t b e obeyed. Cyprian o f C a r t h a g e (d. 2 5 8 ) expressed the inevitability o f war,

38

stated that t h e decline o f military forces within the e m p i r e was a sign o f G o d s punishment,

39

a n d prayed for the success o f the imperial a r m i e s 40

in warding off e n e m i e s . O r i g e n s (ca. 1 8 5 - c a . 2 5 4 ) response to Celsus, a pagan p h i l o s o p h e r a n d critic o f Christians, was also sympathetic to the empire.

41

Celsus a c c u s e d t h e Christians o f b e i n g parasites b e c a u s e t h e y

did n o t fight for the R o m a n E m p i r e , but still benefited from its armies. O r i g e n s response was that Christians were loyal and that the C h r i s t i a n v o c a t i o n was different f r o m t h e pagan vocation: pagans were involved in t e m p o r a l warfare, b u t Christians were involved in spiritual warfare, a n d exercised a "priesthood" o n b e h a l f o f the empire. In this regard, there was a c o - o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n the pax Romana

and t h e pax

Christiana.

36. Irenaeus, Haer. 5.24. In 4.36 Irenaeus provided the same interpretation of Romans 13. 37. Irenaeus, Haer. 5.24. 38. Cyprian, On Morality 2. 39. Cyprian, Demetr. 3,17. 40. Ibid., 20. 41. This summary of Origens response to Celsus is taken from Campenhausen, "Christians and Military Service," 165-67.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

268

O r i g e n also u n d e r s t o o d the e m p i r e t o have b e e n providentially arranged 42

so that the gospel c o u l d m o r e easily b e p r e a c h e d . W h a t happens, Celsus asked, w h e n everyone b e c o m e s a Christian and n o o n e will fight in the army? O r i g e n had n o real answer. F o r h i m the idea o f e v e r y o n e ( o r the majority) b e i n g Christian was n o t really foreseeable. Perhaps the o n e writer w h o best demonstrates the differences b e ­ tween c o n t e m p o r a r y attitudes to e m p i r e and early C h r i s t i a n attitudes to empire is Tertullian. Tertullian has b e e n c o i n e d the first Puritan for his c o m m i t m e n t to a pure and biblical c h u r c h , o n e n o t tainted b y idolatry and philosophy (he is the o n e w h o stated "what does J e r u s a l e m have to do with A t h e n s ? " ) . H e n o t e d in his Apology

that, while C h r i s t i a n s c o u l d

not profess C a e s a r to b e god-like in any way, they did offer prayers for the emperor. Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish. 43

As for those w h o c l a i m e d the Christians' prayers were faked in or­ der to escape persecution, h e said that there were two reasons for such prayers to b e sincere. First, Christians were enjoined b y t h e i r Scriptures to pray for their rulers. His reference was to 2 T i m 2:2 a n d t h e a d m o n i ­ tion to pray for kings, rulers, and p o w e r s .

44

S e c o n d , he also n o t e d h o w

there was a n o t h e r reason for Christian prayers for the empire: the e m ­ pire was holding b a c k disaster. There is another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth—in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration. 45

42. Origen, Cels. 2.30. 43. Tertullian, Apol. 30. 44. Ibid., 31. 45. Ibid., 32. Athenagoras, Leg. 32 (ca. 177) echoes this concern for the benefits of

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

As o n e c o m m e n t a t o r puts it, Tertullian believed that Christians were citizens like any o t h e r citizen (in fact, b e c a u s e o f their high m o r a l caliber, h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m to b e b e t t e r citizens than m o s t ) , a n d in Tertullians o p i n i o n t h e " R o m a n State is their State; that w h i c h damages t h e State also damages t h e m ; that w h i c h is beneficial to the State is beneficial to 46

t h e m also." A s for t h e emperor, Tertullian argued that Christians held h i m in "reverence a n d sacred respect" a n d that he was "called b y . . . [the] L o r d t o his office."

47

I n fact, h e went so far as to say that "Caesar is m o r e

ours than yours" since it was t h e Christian G o d w h o "appointed h i m " to his office.

48

Tertullian was even willing to call h i m Lord, b u t o n l y in what

h e called "the c o m m o n a c c e p t a n c e o f the word," n o t w h e n it m e a n t "Lord 49

as in G o d s place." In Tertullians o t h e r writings we see t h e s a m e attitude to t h e R o m a n authorities. In On Idolatry

h e referred t o R o m a n s 1 3 , 1 Pet

2 : 1 3 - 1 4 , a n d T i t u s 3:1 w h e n h e urged his readers to o b e y the authorities ( n o t e that h e did n o t m a k e a distinction between "qualitatively superior authorities," s o m e t h i n g that Porter claims Paul was doing in R o m a n s 13).

50

As n o t e d above, however, this o b e d i e n c e ended w h e n idolatry was

required. W h e n h e wrote To Scapula

in order to address t h e p e r s e c u ­

t i o n o f Christians, h e r e m i n d e d t h e R o m a n governor that the R o m a n authorities h a d n o t h i n g to fear from Christians, for the Christian is enemy to none, least of all to the Emperor of Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God, and so cannot but love and honour; and whose well-being moreover, he must needs desire, with that of the empire over which he reigns so long as the world shall stand—for so long as that shall Rome continue. 51

H e went o n to say that C h r i s t i a n s sacrificed for the safety o f the e m p e r o r a n d prayed for the well-being o f the empire.

Rome: "For who are more deserving to obtain the things they ask, than those who, like us, pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, all men be­ coming subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, and may ourselves readily perform all that is commanded us." 46. As quoted in Swift, Early Fathers on War, 24. 47. Tertullian, Apol. 33. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid., 34. 50. Tertullian, Idol 15. 51. Tertullian, Scap. 2.

270

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

W h a t is n o t e w o r t h y about Tertullians view o f e m p i r e is that his p r i m a r y c o n c e r n was idolatry—not e m p i r e per se. N o t surprisingly, he also did not s e e m to envision the possibility o f any o t h e r political reality but empire. D. R. Griffiths notes that t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers had a very different view o f e m p i r e t h a n we d o today. H e writes: The New Testament writers lived under an autocratic government in which they themselves had no semblance of political power or responsibility. The choice between them was acceptance of the Roman Empire or anarchy and chaos. There were certain features in the life of the Empire which proved helpful for the diffusion of Christianity... These aspects of contemporary life were accepted by the early Christians with gratitude. 52

As outlined above, Tertullian and the o t h e r c h u r c h fathers c o n t i n u e d this positive view o f the empire.

Criticism

of the

Empire

In his discussion o f the role o f e m p i r e in the shaping o f Christology, Joerg Rieger states that what is n o t surprising is h o w C h r i s t i a n s were influenced b y the empire. Rather, what is surprising is h o w t h e y still m a n a g e d to "develop resistance" to t h e imperial p o w e r s .

53

T h e following

sections outline s o m e o f this resistance. P R O P H E C Y OF I T S D E M I S E

Despite I r e n a e u s s exhortations to b e o b e d i e n t to the authorities that G o d had appointed, he pointed to the p r o p h e c y o f D a n i e l and the b o o k o f Revelation to r e m i n d his readers that s o m e d a y R o m e would fall.

54

The

context is a refutation o f G n o s t i c denials o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t G o d , and an assertion that the prophecies o f the O l d Testament and t h e L o r d Jesus b o t h had their origins in G o d the Father. W h e t h e r o r n o t a critique o f

52. Griffiths, New Testament and the Roman State, 126-27. 53. "What is particularly interesting is not that Christians were influenced by the logic of empire—after all, the empire was like the air they breathed; what is remarkable is that some of them were able to recognize the ambivalence of empire and to develop resistance. Without achieving complete independence from empire—an illusionary goal then as now—some of the earliest theologies and Christologies managed to refuse conforming to the expectations of empire" (Rieger, Christ and Empire, 28). 54. Irenaeus, Haer. 5.26.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

R o m e was o n his m i n d , such a c l a i m certainly challenged t h e popular idea that R o m e would exist forever. W A R N I N G OF JUDGMENT FOR ITS S I N S

Justin wrote his First Apology

to t h e R o m a n E m p e r o r Titus. H e i n f o r m e d

the e m p e r o r that C h r i s t i a n s were loyal a n d obedient, as Jesus h a d in­ structed t h e m t o b e w h e n h e said " R e n d e r therefore to C a e s a r the things that are C a e s a r s a n d to G o d t h e things that are G o d s." However, h e also w a r n e d t h e e m p e r o r that h e was n o t i m m u n e to G o d s j u d g m e n t . Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed are persuaded) that every man will suffer pun­ ishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said,"To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required." 55

This threat o f G o d s j u d g m e n t o n unjust rulers was e c h o e d b y others. As n o t e d above, Irenaeus c o u n s e l e d o b e d i e n c e to t h e political p o w ­ ers c o n s i d e r e d o r d a i n e d b y G o d . T h e authorities were able to b e a r t h e sword a n d execute j u s t i c e without p u n i s h m e n t from G o d , for in acting justly t h e y were acting as G o d s agents. However, this was n o t c o u n ­ sel that provided t h e state with u n l i m i t e d power with n o m o r a l c o n ­ straints. Rather, Irenaeus m a d e it clear that the authorities themselves would b e j u d g e d for their o w n sins b e c a u s e G o d judges everyone: rulers included. But whatsoever . . . [rulers] do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and impiously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish; for the just judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. 56

Tertullian went further t h a n Irenaeus, a n d in To Scapula

h e actually

wrote to a R o m a n P r o c o n s u l in C a r t h a g e and threatened h i m with G o d s j u d g m e n t i f h e did n o t stop t h e persecution o f Christians. H e attempted

55. Justin, 1 Apol. 17. 56. Irenaeus, Haer. 5.24.

271

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

272

t o m a k e it clear that C h r i s t i a n s loved their e n e m i e s and were friends o f the emperor. Nonetheless, h e wrote that h e felt c o m p e l l e d t o write t o the P r o c o n s u l out o f a c o n c e r n for h i m and o t h e r e n e m i e s o f C h r i s t i a n s .

57

W h y c o n c e r n ? B e c a u s e G o d will b r i n g j u d g m e n t d o w n o n all w h o m i s ­ treat his people, for "no state shall b e a r u n p u n i s h e d t h e guilt o f shedding 58

Christian b l o o d . " A great deal o f t h e short letter is filled with descrip­ tions o f t h e often-grisly deaths o f t h o s e punished by G o d . T h e warn­ ing was clear: b a c k off o r face G o d s j u d g m e n t . A s for Christians, t h e y did not m i n d t h e persecution, for t h e R o m a n p e r s e c u t i o n led t o their 59

"glory." In his c o m m e n t a r y o n R o m a n s , O r i g e n addressed t h e question: what about unjust rulers w h o p e r s e c u t e Christians? His response was the following: Nobody will deny that our senses—sight, sound and thought— are given to us by God. But although we get them from God, what we do with them is up to us . . . God will judge us righteously for having abused what he gave us to use for good. Likewise, Gods judgment against the authorities will be just, if they have used the powers they have received according to their own ungodliness and not according to the laws of God. 60

O n c e again, the message was that G o d s j u d g m e n t was c o m i n g for t h o s e w h o persecuted the church. Cyprian e c h o e d these s e n t i m e n t s w h e n he declared that t h e certainty o f future divine v e n g e a n c e m a d e the Christians patient in the midst o f p e r s e c u t i o n .

61

C O U N S E L TO R E F U S E TO S E R V E I N T H E A R M Y (OR A S M A G I S T R A T E S )

T h e question o f Christians and R o m a n military service is a c o n t e n t i o u s o n e for t h o s e seeking to identify early c h u r c h pacifism, and there is n o c o n s e n s u s in sight. W h y ? First, there is a p r o b l e m with sources. T h e r e is a paucity o f sources and in the o n e s that do survive there are c o n t r a ­ d i c t o r y a c c o u n t s (e.g., Celsus critiques Christians for not serving in the

57. Tertullian, Scap. 1. He also wrote that he was not trying to scare him, but simply warn him. "We who are without fear ourselves are not seeking to frighten you, but we would save all men if possible by warning them not to fight with God." See Tertullian, Scap. 4. 58. Tertullian, Scap. 3. 59. Ibid., 5. 60. Origen, Comm. Rom. 5.92,94, as noted in Bray, ed., Romans, 324. 61. Cyprian, Demetr. 17.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

273

a r m y at t h e s a m e t i m e as C h r i s t i a n s were serving in t h e " T h u n d e r i n g Legion"). S e c o n d , t h e stakes are high. E v e r y o n e wants t h e early c h u r c h t o b e o n their side. Third, t h e p r o b l e m o f biases is always a factor, a n d in t h e c a s e o f early C h r i s t i a n s in t h e army, J o h n Helgeland argues that o n e s confessional viewpoint usually d e t e r m i n e s t h e o u t c o m e o f o n e s research.

62

However, m y goal in this s e c t i o n is far m o r e m o d e s t t h a n

to settle t h e early c h u r c h pacifism debate. M y p u r p o s e in this s e c t i o n is simply to provide examples o f C h r i s t i a n opposition to service in t h e imperial army. T h e larger question as to w h e t h e r o r n o t all—or m o s t — C h r i s t i a n s were pacifists will r e m a i n u n a n s w e r e d .

63

C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a was critical o f the v i o l e n c e o f the R o m a n s and t h e i r g o d s ,

64

a n d e x h o r t e d Christians to b e peaceful p e o p l e .

65

Hippolytus (ca. 1 7 0 - c a . 2 3 6 ) said that Christians m u s t n o t execute people, m u s t n o t enter t h e a r m y as a c a t e c h u m e n o r baptized Christian, 66

a n d h e o p p o s e d t h e oaths a n d a r m y lifestyle. Cyprian rejected dual m o r a l i t y for t h e state a n d individuals,

67

and declared that after the r e c e p ­

t i o n o f t h e Eucharist "the h a n d is n o t to b e stained with t h e sword a n d bloodshed."

68

O r i g e n m a d e it clear that while Christians would pray for

t h e e m p i r e s success o n t h e battlefield, t h e y would n o t physically fight o n it.

69

U n l i k e Tertullian ( w h o e m p h a s i z e d idolatry m o r e t h a n v i o l e n c e ) ,

O r i g e n e s c h e w e d t h e v i o l e n c e associated with military service b e c a u s e h e was c o n v i n c e d C h r i s t prohibited i t .

70

Tertullian is a critical s o u r c e for d e t e r m i n i n g early Christian in­ v o l v e m e n t in t h e military. W h i l e h e c o n c e d e d that Christians served in t h e army, h e wrote against t h e practice. As n o t e d above, the p r o b l e m o f idolatry was central for Tertullian, a n d h e argued against serving in t h e a r m y o r as a magistrate b e c a u s e there was n o way t o avoid implicating 62. Helgeland, "Christians in the Roman Army." 63. For helpful (but dated) summary of the church fathers and war, see Swift, Early Fathers on War. 64. Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 3. 65. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.12. 66. Hippolytus, Trad. op. 16. 67. Cyprian, Don. 6. 68. Cyprian, Pat. 14. 69. "We do not indeed fight under... [the emperor], although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God." See Origen, Cels. 8.73. 70. Ibid., 3.8.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

274

o n e s e l f with the idolatry so intimately and inseparably associated with military and political life.

71

T h e issue o f b l o o d s h e d was also an i m p o r ­

tant o n e , a n d h e c o n t e n d e d that Christians were n o t to shed b l o o d , and thus should n o t serve in t h e a r m y o r as a magistrate.

72

MARTYRDOM

T h e greatest resistance to empire was the refusal o f early Christians to submit to the d e m a n d s o f t h e e m p i r e in regards to idolatry. T h e c o n ­ s e q u e n c e was persecution. T h e well-known

martyrdom

account o f

Polycarp, B i s h o p o f S m y r n a , is a classic (but there were m a n y m o r e a c ­ c o u n t s written to inspire the faithful w h o m i g h t have to follow t h e s a m e 73

p a t h ) . A p o r t i o n o f it reads: And the Irenarch Herod . . . met him, and taking him up into the chariot, they seated themselves beside him, and endeavoured to persuade him, saying, "What harm is there in saying, Caesar is Lord, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?" . . . Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ"; Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" 74

Polycarps refusal to confess "Caesar is L o r d " is a clear example o f the point m a d e b y the papers o n t h e N e w Testament in this v o l u m e . T h a t c h e r claims the crucifixion a c c o u n t t u r n s o n its head the imperial version o f w h o is Lord; C a r t e r states h o w " M a t t h e w contests claims that R o m e

71. Tertullian, Idol. 15-19. The issue of idolatry was the sole issue that Tertullian dealt with in De coronis militis, his treatment of whether or not Christians should serve in the military (he said "no" due to the pervasive idolatry). 72. "But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action" (ibid., 19). 73. "Martyrdom was also a literary phenomenon. Texts helped to create the martyr ethos and governed its interpretation. Historians now distrust many surviving ac­ counts. They are often demonstrably late: incidents that occurred in the second or third centuries are recorded in documents written in the fifth or sixth. The surviving acta, martyria and passiones shroud their early components in a complex interweaving of heavily edited material" (Rousseau, Early Christian Centuries, 159). 74. Mart. Pol. 8,10.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire t

represents divine purposes, locating such a g e n c y in Jesus the Christ

275 >>>

(p.

1 0 9 ) ; Westfall notes h o w imperial "triumphalistic t h e o l o g y a n d power is pitted directly against t h e power, sovereignty, a n d v i c t o r y o f G o d in C h r i s t " in Revelation (p. 2 5 4 ) ; Evans identifies the kingship o f Jesus in Luke; P o r t e r outlines h o w t h e letter to the R o m a n s identifies the t r u e Lord; a n d L o w e argues that in Ephesians "Christ leads his captives in an a l m o s t u n m i s t a k a b l y imperial triumph" (p. 2 0 6 ) . In all these instances t h e critical issue was t h e identity o f L o r d Jesus and the claims o f L o r d Caesar. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers m a d e it clear that it was o n e o r t h e other; t h e c h u r c h fathers a n d t h e examples o f early Christian martyrs reflected that c o n v i c t i o n w h e n t h e y refused to confess "Caesar is Lord." W h e t h e r covertly o r overtly, t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers challenged t h e imperial authority's c l a i m s o f ultimate loyalty, and in this regard were successful in i n c u l c a t i n g c o n v i c t i o n s that would lead to the m a r t y r d o m s o f t h e s e c o n d , third, a n d fourth centuries. O f course, the reasons for t h e R o m a n p e r s e c u t i o n o f Christians were m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n I a m present­ ing here, a n d varied due to t i m e , place, and personality o f rulers.

75

Be

that as it may, at t h e c o r e o f t h e issue for Christians was t h e refusal to c o m m i t idolatry b y r e c o g n i z i n g anyone but Jesus as Lord, and b y t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y this c o n v i c t i o n was far from a covert teaching—it was o p e n l y written about a n d confessed to e m p e r o r s (Justin M a r t y r ) a n d l o ­ cal rulers (Tertullian). W h a t is n o t e w o r t h y is that while we m a y see these refusals to c o n ­ fess C a e s a r as L o r d as examples o f anti-empire s e n t i m e n t ( a n d certainly the R o m a n authorities did), t h e c h u r c h fathers did not. As Swift notes, t h e critical issue for the early Christians was n o t imperial power, but t h e issue o f idolatry. A n d w h e n "the issue o f idolatry was solved at the t i m e o f C o n s t a n t i n e . . . t h e principal source o f opposition to t h e state was removed."

76

CONCLUSION In s u m m a r y , while there was n o t u n a n i m i t y a m o n g the c h u r c h fathers in regards to every issue related to empire, there are s o m e salient points that c a n b e drawn from this b r i e f survey. First, the c h u r c h fathers c o n t i n -

75. For further details on the persecution of early Christians, see Frend, Martyr­ dom. 76. Swift, Early Fathers on War, 25.

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

ued the t r a j e c t o r y o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers w h e n t h e y u n a n i m o u s l y refused t o worship any L o r d but Jesus. W i t h i n the pages o f the N e w Testament, C h r i s t i a n s found an ideological f r a m e w o r k that n o t o n l y necessitated their n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n in certain civil a n d religious events (such as p r o c l a i m i n g "Caesar is L o r d " ) , but also sustained t h e m a n d gave t h e m h o p e in the midst o f often-brutal p e r s e c u t i o n o r lonely alienation w h e n t h e y did n o t participate in t h e n o r m a l functions o f R o m a n life. However, this refusal to say " C a e s a r is L o r d " must n o t b e confused with an anti-empire attitude. S e c o n d , there was a r e m a r k a b l e degree o f sympathy for the empire. Prayers for t h e health a n d welfare o f t h e emperor, prayers for imperial victories o n the battlefield, a n d appreciation for the fact that the empire aided the spread o f t h e faith all indicate that the c h u r c h fathers appre­ ciated t h e benefits o f empire. T h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n for C h r i s t i a n s t o o b e y their rulers b y "rendering t o C a e s a r what is C a e s a r s " o n l y reinforces the impression that t h e c h u r c h fathers were far from revolutionaries seek­ ing t o o v e r t h r o w imperial rule, a n d t h e y s e e m e d quite c o n t e n t t o have the e m p i r e c o n t i n u e for the foreseeable future. O f course, the positive view o f e m p i r e was always in t e n s i o n with t h e ever-present v i o l e n c e a n d idolatry, s o m e t h i n g that t h e C h r i s t i a n s n e e d e d to avoid. H e r e we n e e d t o pause a n d n o t e that we must b e careful n o t to project b a c k into t h e early centuries o f the c h u r c h c o n t e m p o r a r y antiimperial assumptions. I agree with C a r t e r w h e n h e states that m e t h o d is a "fundamental issue in e x p l o r i n g h o w t h e gospels o f M a t t h e w and M a r k negotiate t h e R o m a n E m p i r e " (p. 9 0 ) . As d e m o n s t r a t e d in these papers, p o s t m o d e r n , social s c i e n c e , a n d o t h e r m e t h o d o l o g i e s ( o r critical theories) have b e e n used to u n c o v e r what m a y b e covert a n t i - R o m a n s e n t i m e n t s in the N e w T e s t a m e n t writings. At the risk o f s o u n d i n g like a Luddite, I have to say that I a m n o t sold o n every particular critical t h e o r y within the p o s t m o d e r n world. In the m o s t basic sense, p o s t m o d e r n a n d p o s t c o l o n i a l theories were b o r n out o f a n o b l e desire t o h e a r ( a n d liberate) the voices o f the disenfranchised, the oppressed, and the c o n s t r u c t e d "other." W r i t t e n m a i n l y b y t h o s e w h o were increasingly alienated from their religion o f birth ( J u d a i s m ) , and w h o were in the process o f losing the legal protection that c a m e from that association, the c a n o n i c a l writings provide what s e e m s to b e an o b ­ vious testing g r o u n d for such theories.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

However, the d r a w b a c k o f s o m e theories is that t h e intention o f the biblical author b e c o m e s , at best, a s e c o n d a r y c o n c e r n , o r at worst, an irrelevant ( o r u n k n o w a b l e ) matter. F r e d e r i c k C r e w s , in Pooh,

Postmodern

provides a h u m o r o u s b u t scathing critique o f m a n y m o d e r n liter­

ary t h e o r i e s that, w h e n applied to the W i n n i e t h e P o o h stories, reveal a c h i l d r e n s story full o f s a m e s e x marriage (Piglet m o v e s in with P o o h ) , m i s o g y n y ( K a n g a s oppressed state at h o m e ) , abuse ( P i g l e t s behavior is obviously a sign o f an abusive past), a n d even i m p e r i a l i s m ( P o o h s at­ tempts t o steal h o n e y from the b e e s ) . I have n o desire to go into t h e wars over p o s t m o d e r n i s m in m y discipline,

77

o t h e r t h a n to say that I a m c o n c e r n e d about the intention

o f t h e authors. It s e e m s pretty clear that J o h n h a d the R o m a n E m p i r e in m i n d w h e n h e p e n n e d Revelation. B u t what about o t h e r authors a n d t h e i r intentions? F o r instance, did J o h n intentionally c o n s t r u c t t h e crucifixion a c c o u n t as a c o u n t e r - m e m o r y t o the d o m i n a n t narrative o f R o m a n supremacy? C e r t a i n theories related to empire a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t are predicated n o t j u s t o n t h e assumption that t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers were anti-empire, but that their anti-empire sentiments were similar t o late t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y anti-imperial sentiments. In o t h e r words, o n e c o u l d take t h e o r i e s o r studies related to twentieth-century opposition to i m p e r i a l i s m , transport t h e m b a c k 1 9 0 0 years and superimpose t h e m o n a c o m p l e t e l y different people, period, a n d p r o b l e m . C a r t e r leans heavily o n p o s t c o l o n i a l studies for his l o o k at Matthew, a n d T h a t c h e r relies o n Foucault s m o d e l o f " c o u n t e r m e m o r y " in his reading o f J o h n . I n e a c h case, t h e assumption is that t h e biblical author s attitudes to empire m i r ­ rored t h o s e o f t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y o p p o n e n t s o f empire. B u t what i f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t writers appreciated t h e benefits o f empire? W h i l e the N e r o n i a n p e r s e c u t i o n was brutal, it was n o t empire-wide. A n d , as C a r t e r notes, there is "no evidence" that t h e empire subjected "late

first-century

followers o f Jesus t o daily, life-or-death persecution" (p. 9 1 ) . S o w h y would t h e y b e so anti-empire? W e a s s u m e that t h e y would b e b e c a u s e we are. In fact, s o m e c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars—writers o f t h e papers presented

77. For some examples of criticisms of postmodernism in the history academy, see Evans, In Defense of History; Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob, Telling the Truth. For a defense of postmodernism in the academy, see Stone, Constructing the Holocaust. For a helpful and brief summary of recent developments regarding postmodernism in the history academy, see Curthoys and Docker, Is History Fiction?, chs. 7-11.

Z77

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

h e r e included—indicate surprise i f there is even a hint o f pro-empire sentiment; the assumption, o f c o u r s e , is that the biblical authors should b e appalled with empire, n o t appreciative o f it. But was that the case? A l o o k at the c h u r c h fathers suggests that t h e y were not as anti-empire as m a n y suppose and h o p e . Third, a l o o k at t h e c h u r c h fathers helps deal with c o n t e m p o r a r y debates over c o n t e n t i o u s passages such as R o m a n s 13. As Porter notes, this passage has b e e n a point o f c o n t e n t i o n for t h o s e w h o struggle with P a u l s alleged s u b s e r v i e n c e to t h e e m p i r e and c o m m a n d t o o b e y "no m a t t e r what." Neil Elliott is o n e such person. In regards t o R o m a n s 13, h e writes: That we should allow these verses to thwart even the most mod­ est inquiries into our government s complicity in repression and murder is a staggering betrayal, not only of the oppressed, but also of the holy man who traced his apostolate from city to city with his own blood. Only the arrogant presumptions of our own privilege have allowed us to hear these verses as a sacred legiti­ mation of power. 78

However, even a casual reading o f the c h u r c h fathers indicates that there was never a sense that R o m a n s 13 indicated a "no m a t t e r what" p o l i c y in regards t o o b e d i e n c e . O b e d i e n c e and respect were usually qualified b y limits, such as the avoidance o f idolatry. R e m e m b e r , t h e o n e s with such a positive view o f e m p i r e were also the o n e s refusing to submit to aspects o f R o m a n rule and writing critiques o f R o m a n power. M y h u n c h is that t h e c h u r c h fathers would have b e e n amazed, saddened, and an­ gered b y the misreadings o f R o m a n s 13 that defend blind a d h e r e n c e to the state. B u t m y h u n c h is also that t h e y would have b e e n quite surprised at o u r inability to see the relative benefits o f R o m a n rule and the N e w T e s t a m e n t imperative to s u b m i t t o the authorities. F o u r t h , we n e e d t o see that the progression to C o n s t a n t i n e and a Christian empire was not so farfetched or such a radical departure from earlier years. In fact, m u c h o f what was necessary for a Christian empire was expressed long before C o n s t a n t i n e : belief in a divinely appointed emperor, o b e d i e n c e to the state e x p e c t e d , support for imperial victories o n the battlefield, and the c o n v i c t i o n that there was a providential role for the state t o benefit t h e church. A s Swift notes, " T h e c h a n g e that o c ­ curred [with C o n s t a n t i n e s c o n v e r s i o n ] represents a m a j o r shift rather 78. Elliott, Liberating Paul 226.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

t h a n a reversal in Christian t h i n k i n g , a shift that was m a d e possible b y earlier ambiguities a n d disagreements c o n c e r n i n g t h e use o f c o e r c i o n a n d m a d e n e c e s s a r y b y t h e altered political c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h Christians n o w found themselves."

79

T o c o n c l u d e , in h e r discussion o f Christians a n d violence, Lisa Cahill asks two questions relevant to this t o p i c .

80

W h a t is t h e way o f

discipleship as established b y Jesus a c c o r d i n g t o the Scriptures? H o w c a n Christians, a n d t h e Christian c o m m u n i t y , integrate their religious identities with their m e m b e r s h i p in a particular culture a n d civil s o c i ­ ety? T h e c h u r c h fathers addressed t h o s e questions in t h e earliest years o f Christianity, a n d in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e answer for t h e m , in part, s e e m s t o b e expressed well in the words o f t h e a n o n y m o u s Letter

to Diognetus:

" T h e y [Christians] dwell in their o w n countries, but

simply as sojourners. A s citizens, t h e y share in all things with others, a n d yet t h e y endure all things as i f foreigners."

81

T o use a m o d e r n phrase,

t h e y h a d dual citizenship. T h e y were g o o d citizens, appreciative o f t h e empire, a n d loyal to t h e emperor, but never completely a part o f t h e e m ­ pire, for their ultimate loyalty lay elsewhere ( m u c h to t h e chagrin o f t h e imperial authorities). That was t h e tension then, as it is today.

79. Swift, Early Fathers on War, 29. 80. Cahill, Love Your Enemies, 40. 81. Diogn. 5.

279

280

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albright, Madeleine, and Bill Woodward. The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Appleby, Joyce, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. Telling the Truth about History. New York/London: Norton, 1994. Bainton, Roland. A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Beck, Norman A. Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. New York: Scribners, 1967. Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Cadoux, C. John. The Early Christian Attitude to War. New York: Seabury, 1982. Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Campenhausen, Hans von. "Christians and Military Service in the Early Church." In Tradition and Life in the Church, translated by Α. V. Littledale, 160-70. London: Collins, 1968. Carter, Warren. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. . The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Cassidy, Richard J. Christians and Roman Rule in the New Testament: New Perspectives. New York: Crossroad, 2001. . John's Gospel in New Perspective: Christology, and the Realities of Roman Rule. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992. Chapman, Stephen B. "Imperial Exegesis: When Caesar Interprets Scripture." In Anxious about Empire: Theological Essays on the New Global Realities, edited by Wes Avram, 91-102. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004. Clarke, W. K. Lowther. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. London: SPCK, 1937. Crews, Frederick. Postmodern Pooh. New York: North Point, 2001. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. Curthoys, Ann, and John Docker. Is History Fiction*.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994. Evans, Richard. In Defense of History. London: Granta, 1997. Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York: Basic, 2003. Fowden, Garth. "Pagan Versions of the Rain Miracle of A.D. 172." Historia 36 (1987) 83-95. Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. New York: New York University Press, 1967. Gilbert, Gary. "The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response.''/^! 121 (2003) 497-529.

H E A T H — T h e Church

Fathers

and the Roman

Empire

Griffiths, D. R. The New Testament and the Roman State. Swansea: John Penry, 1970. Gwyther, Anthony, and Wes Howard-Brook. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Harnack, Adolf. Militia Christi: The Christian Religion and the Military in the First Three Centuries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Helgeland, John. "Christians and the Roman Army A.D. 173-337." Church History 43 (1974) 149-63,200. Herzog, William R., II. Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. . Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. , editor. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. , editor. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. , editor. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004. Kinzig, Wolfram. "The Greek Christian Writers." In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 BC-AD 400, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 633-70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Mandelbaum, Michael. The Casefor Goliath: How America Acts as the Worlds Government in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Public Affairs, 2005. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Marks Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988. Northcott, Michael. An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic Religion and American Empire. London: Tauris, 2004. Rieger, Joerg. Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Rousseau, Philip. The Early Christian Centuries. London: Longman, 2002. Rubin, Η. Z. "Weather Miracles under Marcus Aurelius." Athenaeum 57 (1979) 357-80. Ryan, Edward. "The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians." Theological Studies 13 (1952) 1-32. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979. Satterthwaite, Philip E."The Latin Church Fathers." In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 BC-AD 400, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 671-94. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Sider, Robert Dick. Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Singer, Peter. The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush. New York: Dutton,2004. Stone, Dan. Constructing the Holocaust: A Study in Historiography. London/Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2003. Swift, Louis J. The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983.

281

282

E M P I R E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Modern Authors

Achtemeier, P. J., 2 4 3 , 2 5 6 Ackroyd, P. R., 6 3 , 8 6 Adams, Μ. M., 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 , 2 2 6 Adamson, J. B., 2 3 7 , 2 5 6 Albright, M., 2 5 9 , 2 8 0 Alfoldy,G.,233,256 Anderson, P. N., 2 1 5 , 2 2 6 Appleby, J., 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 Arlandson, J. M . , 9 4 , 1 1 6 Arnold, C. E., 2 0 2 - 4 , 2 0 7 , 2 2 6 Ashton, J., 140,163 Attridge,H.W.,248,256 Aune, D. E . , 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 Avram,W.,280

Blenkinsopp, J., 6 8 , 7 2 , 7 7 , 7 8 , 8 4 , 8 6 Blomberg, C. L., 2 3 4 - 3 6 , 2 5 6 Boda, M. J., 4 , 5 , 6 , 5 6 , 6 5 , 6 8 , 7 8 , 8 1 , 83,86 Bolt, P. G., 198,227 Bond, H., 106,116 Bonnard, P. E., 7 8 , 8 6 Boring, Μ. E., 167,193 Bouchard, D . E , 1 6 3 Braaten, C. E , 257 Brandon, S. G. R, 2 6 1 , 2 8 0 Bray, G., 280 Brown, R. E., 2 4 5 , 2 5 6 Bruce, F. E , 1 6 4 , 1 7 6 , 1 9 3 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 6 Brueggemann,W., 5 6 , 8 4 , 8 6 , 2 2 5 , 227 Bultmann, R., 178,193 Bureth,P.,127,138

Bainton, R., 1 5 , 1 6 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 , 2 8 0 Bal, M., 168,193 Balch, D. L., 1 1 8 , 2 4 2 , 2 5 6 Barbalet,J.,97,116 Barclay, J., 9 1 , 1 1 6 Barth, K., 192 Barth, M., 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 Bartholomew, C. G., 1 9 9 , 2 2 7 , 2 2 8 Barton, S. C , 2 3 8 , 2 5 6 Beck, Ν. Α., 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 0 Bedard, S., 179,195 Begg, C . T . , 6 3 , 6 6 , 8 6 Bellis,A. 0 . , 2 2 7 Berger,K.,167,193 Bertram, G., 126,138 Bevan, E., 166,193 Bhabha, H., 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 Biddle,M. E., 7 5 , 8 2 , 8 6 Bland, D., 116,117

Cadoux, C. J., 2 6 5 , 2 8 0 Cahill, L. S., 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 Caird, G. B., 204,227 Campbell, B. L., 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 - 4 1 , 2 5 6 Campenhausen, H., 267,280 Carr,D. M., 5 6 , 6 7 , 8 2 , 8 6 Carter, W., 6 , 7 , 9 0 - 9 4 , 9 6 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 , 104,106,108,110-16,199, 211,227,231,234,236,244, 247,250,257,261,262,276, 277,280 Cassidy, R. J., 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 0 Castle, G., 9 9 , 1 1 7 Chapman, S. B., 2 5 9 , 2 8 0 Charles, J. D., 2 4 4 , 2 5 7

283

Modern Charlesworth,M. P., 171,193 Childs, B. S., 5 6 , 6 3 , 8 3 , 8 6 Chow, J. K., 189,190,193 Clarke, W.K. L . , 2 6 6 , 2 8 0 Clements, R. E., 5 6 , 5 9 , 6 3 , 6 6 , 7 6 , 78,86,87 Clines, D. J. Α., 89 Clough,A.A.,24,53 Coggins, R. J., 5 6 , 8 7 Cohoon, J . W , 126,138 Collins, A. Y., 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 7 Collins, J. J., 257 Collins, R . E , 138 Colpe, C , 167,193 Conrad, E . W . , 6 1 , 6 6 , 8 7 Conzelmann, H., 176,193 Cooper, N. J., 9 9 , 1 1 9 Cranfield, C. Ε. B., 181,193 Crews, E , 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 Cross, F. L., 227 Cross, E M . , 4 9 , 5 3 , 6 7 , 8 7 Crossan, J. D., 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 7 , 2 6 1 , 280, Curthoys,A.,277,280 Danker, F. W , 126,133,138,167, 169,171,190,193 Davids, P., 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 2 5 7 Davies, G. I., 5 6 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 8 7 Davies, J. P., 166,193 Davies, P. R., 86 Deissmann,A., 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 8 , 1 6 6 , 167,171,173,193 deSilva, D. Α., 1 8 3 , 1 9 3 , 2 3 8 , 2 4 9 , 257 Docker, J., 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 Donaldson, J., 263,281 Donaldson, L., 99,117 Donfried, K., 2 1 6 , 2 1 8 , 2 2 7 Dorsch, T., S., 116 Duling, D., 9 4 , 1 1 7 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 7 Dumbrell,W.J.,59,87, Dunn, J. D. G., 1 7 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 3 0 , 2 4 5 , 246,257

Authors Dyson, S., 232,257 Edgar, C. C , 128,138 Edwards, M. J., 2 0 2 , 2 0 8 - 1 1 , 2 2 7 Ehrenberg,V., 1 6 7 , 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 , 1 9 3 Eisenman, R., 208,227 Elliott, N. 1 6 5 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 3 , 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 , 227,278,261,280 Emmerson, G., 7 8 , 8 2 , 8 7 Esler, P., 205,227 Evans, C. Α., 7 - 9 , 5 6 , 8 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 3 8 , 167,171,194,256,257,275 Evans, R., 277,280 Fanon,F.,99,100,117 Fee, G. D., 181,194 Ferguson, J., 166,194 Ferguson, N., 259,280 Fitzmyer,J.,147,163 Fleer, D., 116,117 Fohrer, G., 5 8 , 8 7 Foucault, P. M., 9 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 9 , 1 5 0 , 1 6 3 , 277 Fowden, G., 266,280 Fowl, S. E . , 8 9 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 Fox, R. L., 166,194, Frend, W. H. C , 2 1 8 , 2 2 7 , 2 7 5 , 2 8 1 Friedman, R. E., 89 Futrell,A., 94,117 Gaebelein, F. E., 228 Gardiner, Α., 2 6 , 2 8 , 5 3 , Garnsey„P.,94,96,117 Giardina, Α., 119 Gilbert, G., 261,281 Gombis, T. G., 2 0 3 - 5 , 2 2 7 , 2 2 8 Goppelt, L., 242,257 Gordon, R. P., 3 9 , 5 3 , 8 6 Gorman, M. J., 1 6 5 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 , 209,224,228 Graves, R., 165,194 Green, P., 166,194 Greig,A. C. G., 195 Grieb,A. K., 168,194

Modern Griffiths, D. R.,270,281 Gwyther, Α., 2 5 3 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 1 Hahn, S., 199 Hallo,W.W.,19,53,89 Hammond, N. G. L., 166,194, Hanson, K., C , 105,117 Hanson, P. D., 2 5 3 , 2 5 7 Hardy, T., 164,194 Harland,P.,94,117 Harmer, J. R., 124,138 Harnack, Α., 2 6 3 , 2 6 4 , 2 8 1 Harrill, J. Α., 2 2 4 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 9 , 2 5 7 Hatina,T.R., 117 Hayes, M.A.,258 Hays, R. B., 168,194,210 Head, I., 2 0 5 , 2 2 8 Healy,M.,199 Heath, G., 15,16 Heisserer, A. J., 1 2 6 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 Helgeland, J., 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 , 2 8 1 Hemer,C.J., 175,176,194 Hengel,M., 117,201,228 Herzog, W. R., 114,117,261,281 Hess, R. S., 5 9 , 8 7 Hicks, E. L., 126,138 Hirschfeld, G., 170,194 Holmes, M. W , 124,138 Hoppe, L. J., 5 9 , 7 5 , 7 6 , 8 7 Horsley, R. Α., 9 0 , 9 8 , 1 1 7 , 1 6 4 , 193,194,196-98,201,202, 227-29,260,261,281 Howard-Brook, W , 2 5 3 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 1 , 281 Hunt, A. S., 128,138 Hunt, L . , 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 Ishida,T., 88 Jackson-McCabe, M., 117 Jacob, M., 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 Jacobson, D. M., 129,138 James, P. D., 197,198,228 Jenson, R.W., 257

Authors Jewett, R. K., 1 3 3 , 1 3 8 , 1 7 5 , 1 9 4 Jobes,K. H., 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 2 5 7 Jobling, D., 193 Johnson, L. X , 248,257 Johnson, S. L„ 138 Jones, Α. Η. M., 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 , 193,194 Jones, B.W.,89 Joubert, S., 133,138 Kaminsky, J. S., 227 Kang, S. M., 8 0 , 8 7 Kaplan, Μ. M., 5 7 , 8 7 Kautsky, J., 9 4 , 1 1 8 Keck, L., 108,118 Keener, C , 2 3 2 , 2 3 4 - 3 6 , 2 3 9 , 2 5 7 Keesmaat, S. C , 1 6 8 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 8 , 2 1 0 , 212-14,223,228,229 Kent, Η. Α., Jr., 2 0 8 , 2 2 8 Kiley,M.,139 King, L.W., 2 0 , 5 3 Kingsbury, J. D., 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 8 Kinzig,W., 265,281 Kirk, Α., 147,163 Knight, G. W., 2 2 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 2 8 Knoppers, G., 86 Knowles,M.P.,205,228 Kondoleon, C , 9 3 , 1 1 8 Kramer,W.,182,194 Kreitzer, L. J., 2 0 5 , 2 1 4 , 2 2 8 Kristeva, J., 9 2 , 1 1 8 Kuschke,A., 88 Lack, R., 7 8 , 8 7 Laffi,U.,167,194 Lane, W.L., 2 4 8 , 2 5 8 Lemcio, Ε. E., 2 1 1 , 2 2 8 Lenski, G., 9 4 , 1 1 8 Levenson, J. D., 5 9 , 6 0 , 8 7 Levine, A. J., 116 Liebreich, L. J., 8 2 , 8 7 Liew,T.B.,90,118 LightfootJ. B., 124,138 Lipschitz, O., 5 6 , 8 7

286

Modern Llewelyn, S. R., 126,128,138 Longenecker, R. N., 2 0 9 , 2 1 2 , 2 2 7 , 228 Longman, T., 8 0 , 8 7 Louis, M., 163 Lowe, M.R, 12-15 Lull, D. J., 125,126,138 MacDonald, M. R , 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 , 258 MacKay,C. S., 180,194 Mandelbaum, M., 259,281 Marshall, R H., 170,194 Marshall, I. H., 195 Marshall, R, 189,194 Martin, R. R, 235,258 Martin, T.W., 2 4 0 , 2 5 8 Martin, W., 168,194 Martyn, J.,L., 142 Maslen, M.W., 2 0 1 , 2 2 8 Mattingly, D., 90,118 Mattingly, G. L., 89 Mauck, J.W., 137,138 Maynard-Reid, R U , 235,258 Mays, J. L., 6 0 , 8 7 , 2 2 9 McCann,J.C,219,228 McDonald, L. M., 174,175,194 McLaren, J. S., 129,138 Meeks,W.A., 228 Melugin, R. R, 8 6 , 8 8 Mendenhall, G., 4 4 , 5 3 Menken, M. J. J., 219,228 Milgrom, J., 57,87 Miller, R D., 8 0 , 8 7 , 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 8 Mitchell, RD., 201,228 Moller,K„ 199 Moo, D. J., 181,194 Moran,W.L.,24,53 Moritz, T, 204,228 Mowery, R., 90,118 Moyise, S.,219,228 Moytl, A. J., 17,28,53 Myers, C , 9 0 , 1 1 8 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 1

Authors Neyrey, J. H., 126,138 Nilsson,M.R, 166,194 Nock, A. D., 126,129,138 Northcott,M.,259,281 Oakes, R, 2 0 7 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 6 , 228 Oakman,D. R , 105,117 Ollenburger, B. C , 5 9 , 6 0 , 7 6 , 8 7 Omerzu, H., 137,138 O'Neill, R, 168,194 Oswalt, J., 5 6 , 5 9 , 6 1 , 7 8 , 8 7 , 8 8 Parry, R, 199 Paton,W.R., 126,138 Petersen, N., 165,195 Petit, P., 170,195 Pilgrim, W , 92,118 Pitts, A. W , 173,195 Polan,GJ., 7 8 , 8 8 Porteous, N. W., 5 9 , 8 2 , 8 5 , 8 8 Porter, S. E., 1 0 - 1 2 , 8 9 , 1 7 3 - 7 5 , 1 7 9 , 181,185,187,189,194,195, 228,256-58,269,275,278, 280,281 Pratt, R., 39,53 Price, S. R. E, 9 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 6 6 , 1 9 5 Quinn-Miscall, P. D., 6 5 , 7 6 , 8 8 Rajak, T., 126,139 Reasoner,M., 185,192,195, Reed, J. L., 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 7 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 0 Reid, D. G , 8 0 , 8 7 Rendtorff, R , 6 7 , 8 8 Richards, Κ. H., 138 Richardson, C. C , 2 0 6 , 2 2 9 Riches, J., 9 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 7 , 258 Rieger, J., 270,281 Riesner,R, 168,195 Ringgren, H., 165,195 Ristau, K., 86 Roberts, Α., 263,281

Modern Roberts, J. J. M., 6 0 , 6 5 , 8 1 , 8 3 , 8 8 , 204,229 Rondiez, L., 118 Rousseau, R, 274,281 Rowe, C. K., 132,139 Rubin, H. Z.,266,281 Ryan, E.,265,281 Said, E., 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 8 , 2 6 0 , 2 8 1 Saldarini,A., 103,118 Satterthwaite, R E., 265,281 Sawyer, J. Ε Α., 5 6 , 7 5 , 8 8 Schowalter, D., 128,139 Schroeder, D., 242,258 Scott, J. C , 9 6 - 9 8 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 3 , 118,146,148,160,163 Segovia, E , 9 9 , 1 1 8 Seitz, C. R., 5 6 , 5 9 , 6 1 , 6 6 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 7 5 , 76,83,87,88,199 Sherk, R. K., 167,171,195 Sherlock., C , 8 0 , 8 8 Sider,R. D., 265,281 Silberman, Ν. Α., 1 9 7 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 1 , 2 2 8 Sim, D. C , 9 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 7 , 258 Singer, P., 259,281 Smalley,S., 245,258 Smallwood, Ε. M., 171,195 Sparks, K. L., 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 4 4 , 5 3 Speiser, Ε. Α., 19,53 Spicq, C , 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 9 Spykerboer, H. C , 7 6 , 8 8 Stansell, G., 6 4 , 8 8 Stanzel, F. K., 168,195 Stark, R., 9 4 , 1 1 8 , 2 3 8 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 , 2 5 8 Stone, D., 277,282 Stowers, S. K., 165,195 Strom,A.V.,165,195 Strom, M., 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 , 2 5 8 Strong, E., 166,195 Stuart, D. K., 2 , 3 , 1 5 , 2 4 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 8 , 45,53 Stuhlmueller, C., 218,229 Sugirtharajah, R., 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 8

Authors Swain, S., 9 4 , 1 1 9 Sweeney, Μ. Α., 5 6 , 5 8 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 6 , 8 8 Swift, L. J., 2 6 4 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 5 , 278,279,282 Tamez, E., 231,258 Tarn, W.W., 166,195 Taylor, L. R., 1 2 7 , 1 3 9 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 , 172,177,195 Thatcher, T , 9 , 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 6 3 , 2 7 7 Theissen, G., 1 6 5 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 Thiselton,A., 199 Tomasino, A. J., 8 2 , 8 8 Tombs, D., 258 Van Boheeman, C., 193 Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M., 8 7 , 8 8 Van Tilborg, S., 103,119 Vermeylen, J., 8 6 - 8 8 Vervenne, M., 8 7 , 8 8 Von Rad, G., 3 4 , 5 3 , 6 0 , 8 9 Waddington,W.H.,171 Walsh, B. J., 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 9 Wanamaker, C. Α., 2 1 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 2 9 Webb, B. G., 5 6 , 6 6 , 7 6 , 8 9 Webster, J., 9 9 , 1 1 9 Weinfeld, M., 6 0 , 8 9 Welles, C. B., 127,139, Wengst, K., 1 7 0 , 1 9 5 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 2 Wenham, G., J., 5 9 , 8 7 Westermann, C , 6 8 , 7 8 , 8 2 , 8 9 Westfall, C. L., 1 4 , 1 5 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 9 , 2 4 8 , 250,258,280 Whittaker,C. R., 9 4 , 1 1 9 Whorf, B., 30 Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, U , 172 Wilcken,U.,166,177,195 Williamson, H. G. M., 5 6 , 5 7 , 5 9 , 6 3 , 67,82,83,89 Wilshire, L. E., 7 5 , 7 6 , 8 9 Wilson, A , 7 6 , 8 9 Wink, W., 1 1 9 , 2 0 2 - 4 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 3 , 2 2 9 Winter, E., 128,139

288

Modern Wire, A. C , 189,195 Wiseman, D. J., 2 4 , 5 3 Witherington, B., 168,195,213, 216-22,226,229 Woodward, B., 259,280 Wright, G. E . , 2 8 , 5 3 Wright, Ν. T., 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 9 5 , 196,202,207,210,226,229

Authors YoderJ. Η., 260,282 Younger, Κ. L., 19,53 Zerubavel,Y.,9,143-45,163

Ancient Sources

24:14-15 30:4 32:8 33 34:23-24

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1-3 6:1-6 15:12-16

109 246 37

Joshua 8:29 10:26

Exodus 3:1 15 17:14 19:5-7

104 80 38 79

1

2 236 111 105

44 133 44 104

1

Samuel

Kings

18 2

Deuteronomy 6:5 9:3 12 20:1-20 20:4 21 21:22-23 21:23

42

5:2 104 5:8 105 8 45 24 2,3,39,40,44-46,49,51 24:1-17 36 24:10 50

Numbers 1 21:22 26 27:15-23

201 201

Samuel

14

Leviticus 19:13 19:18 21:16-24

236 78 30 80 105

51 Kings

14:23 15:2 15:19-20 15:29-30 17:3-6

111 200 52 3,35 200 147 147 201,210 289

54 54 54 54 55

1

Chronicles

21

2,3,39,40,44-46,48,49,51

Ancient

290

1 Chronicles 21:7 21:8

132

(cont.) 50 50

22

Job 1-2

50

Psalms 2 2:11-12 4:8-10 22 22:1 22:18 29 29:1 29:10-11 29:11 31:5 37 37:3 37:7 37:9 37:11 37:12 37:13 37:14 37:20 37:22 37:29 37:32 37:34 48 68 68:18 77:11 (LXX) 78:11 109:6 110 110:1a 110:1b

59,60,102 82 203 157 157 155,161 218,219 218 218 218 160 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 59 203,218 13,204 130 130 50 60 122 122

60

Proverbs 11:24

Ezra 1:2

Sources

236

Isaiah 1-39 1-5 1 1:1 1:2-20 1:4 1:7-8 1:8 1:9 1:21-31 1:21 1:26 1:27 2-5 2 2:1-5 2:1 2:2b-3a 2:3b-4 2:5 4 4:2-6 4:3-4 4:5-6 5:1-7 5:16 5:19 5:24 6-39 6 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:5 6:13 7-39

57,58,66,70 57,60,82-84 57-59 57,66 58 58,70 57 58 57 58 58 58 58 58,59 59 58,81 57,58,66 58 58 83 59 59,81 59 59 59 70 70 70 4,5,56,60,65-67,70, 82-84 57,60,61,64,67,70,77, 82,83 55,57,60,66 61 61,70 60 61,70 4,61,63,64

Ancient Isaiah

(cont.)

7-12 7 7:1-6 7:1 7:3 7:4-9 7:4 7:9 7:14 8:7-8 8:8 8:10 9:6-7 9:7 10:1-3 10:5-14 10:17 10:20 11:1-12 12:6 13-35 13-23 13:1-22 14:28 16:4-5 17:7 17:12-14 18:1-7 18:1 19:24-25 23:1-18 23:13 24-27 24:12 25:6-10 26:1 28-33 28:16 29:1—31:9 29:15 29:19 29:23 30:1

61 55 61 62,66 61,62 64 61 62 61,110 62 110 110 65 61 114 31 70 70 65 70 63,64 63,64 63 66 65 70 63 63 63 35 63 63 64 64 111 64 64 64 64 64 70 70 64

Sources 30:8-11 70 30:12 70 30:15 64,70 30:18 64 31:1 64,70 32:1-2 65 34-35 64 35:5-6 111 36-39 61 36-37 64 36:1-2 61 36:1 57,66 36:2 61 36:8-10 62 36:36 62 37:1-7 62 37:2 62 37:4 58 37:6 61 37:14-20 63 37:21-35 63 37:23 70 37:31-32 58 37:32 61 38:7-8 61 39 61,64,66,77,83 39:5-7 66 40-55 4,5,57,66-68,70-73, 76-79,82-84 40-48 84 40 66,69 40:1-11 67,70,83 40:1-2 67 40:1 67,73,79 40:2 68,75 40:9-10 73 40:9 68,69,73 40:9c 67 40:10-11 68 40:10 67,71 40:11 67 40:12—49:13 67-69,75 40:12-31 67,70 40:12-17 69

291

Ancient

292

Isaiah

(cont.)

40:12-16 40:18-20 40:22-24 40:25-26 40:25 40:27 40:29-31 41-55 41-48 41 41:8 41:14 41:16 41:17 41:20 41:21 41:27 42 42:1-7 42:6 42:18-25 42:24 43-48 43:1 43:3 43:14 43:15 43:22 43:28 44:1-2 44:1 44:2 44:5 44:6 44:21 44:23 44:24—45:7 44:26 44:28 45:1-3 45:1 45:3 45:4

69 69 69 69 70 67-70,75 69 72 5,71,72,77 72 67,68,72 68,70,75 68 68 68,70 68,83 68 72,74 72 72,74 71 68 71 68 68,70 68,70,71 68,70,83 68 68 67 68 68 68 68,83 67,68 68 76 68 68,71,72,78 72 71,78,83 68 67,68

Sources 45:11 68,70 45:13 71,72,78 45:15 68 45:17 68 45:19 68 45:25 68 46:1 71 46:3 68 46:8-12 71 46:13 68 47-48 72,78 47 71 47:4 68,70 48 71 48:1-22 71 48:1 68 48:2 68,71 48:12 68 48:14 72 48:17 68,70 48:20 68,71 48:22 71 49-55 5,72, 75, 7 6 , 7 7 , 8 4 49-54 69 49 72,74 49:1-12 73 49:1-6 74 49:3 68,73,74 49:5 68 49:6 68, 7 2 , 7 4 49:7 68,74 49:7ab 70 49:13 69,73 49:14—54:17 68,75 49:14-26 67 49:14 5,68-70,73,75,76 49:26 68 50 74 50:4-9 74 50:10 74 51:1-8 71 51:3 68,73 51:5 71 51:7 70

Ancient Isaiah

(cont.)

51:9—52:6 51:9 51:11 51:12 51:13 51:16 51:17 52-54 52-53 52:1-2 52:1 52:2 52:7-10 52:7 52:8 52:9 52:10 52:11-12 52:12 52:13-15 52:13 52:14 52:15 53 53:1 54 54:1-17 54:2-3 54:4 54:5 54:7 54:14 55-66 55 55:3-5 55:5 55:6-7 56-66 56 56:1-2 56:3-8 56:7 56:8

71 71 68 70,73,75 70 68 68,75 74,75,76 74,76 75 68 68 70,73,76 68 68,73 68,73 71,73 72 68 75 73,74 73 74 75 74 75 70 76 70 68,70,76 76 76 5 76 83 68 76 4,57,77,78,80-85 77 79 78 105 68,77

Sources 56:9—59:15a 56:9—58:14 57:15 58:1 58:6-14 58:14 59:l-15a 59:15b-21 59:16 59:17 59:18 59:20 59:21 60-62 60 60:1-22 60:3 60:6-7 60:9 60:14 60:16 61 61:1-3 61:1 61:3 61:4-9 61:7 61:8 61:8b 61:9 61:10-11 61:11 62 62:1-12 62:1 62:2 62:6 62:7 62:11 62:12 63:1-6 63:1 63:3-4 63:5

293 81 81 82 68 115 68 81 80 80,82 80 80 68,80 80 78,84 80 80 80 82 68 68 68 79,80,85 79 79 68 78,79 79 79 79 79 79 79 80 80 68 80 68 68 68 82 80 82 80 80,82

Ancient

294

Isaiah

(cont.)

63:6 63:7—66:6 63:7—64:12 63:7 63:16 64:10 65:1—66:6 65:9 65:18 65:19 66 66:7-24 66:7-22 66:8 66:10 66:13 66:19 66:20

Sources Daniel

80 81 81 68 68 68 81 68 68 68 58 78 78 68 68,82 68 78 68

5:11 (LXX) 7 7:9 7:13-14 7:23-27 12 12:1-3

188 33 122 112,122 33 112 107

Hosea 6:6

111,115

Amos 5:10-12

114

Nahum 2:13

Jeremiah 1:10 7:5-6 7:9 7:11 12:17 22:13 25:12 28:14 29:7 (LXX 36:7) 29:10 50:2—51:18

147

Habakkuk 105 106 106 105 105 236 32 31 222 32 32

3

80

Zechariah 1:18-21 3:1-2 9:9 Malachi 3:5 NEW

32 50 120,121 236 TESTAMENT

Matthew Ezekiel 22:6-31 34 34:1-22 34:2-3 34:4 34:8 34:10 34:11-22 34:16 34:17-19 34:25-30

114 104 114 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 105

1:1—4:16 1:1-17 1:1 1:17 1:18-25 1:21-23 1:21 1:23 2 2:2 2:4-6 2:6

101 109 109 109 110 105,109 103,110 110 102,110 109,121 102,103 104

Ancient Matthew (cont.) 2:7-9 102 2:8 102 2:12 102 2:15 109 2:16 102 3:7-12 141 3:13-17 109 4:1-11 109 4:1 106 4:3 106 4:8 106,110 4:15-16 109 4:17—11:1 101 4:17 109,110,113 4:18-22 110,113,114 4:23-25 103,110 5-7 263 5:3-12 110,111 5:3 115 5:5 115 5:7 115 5:9 114 5:16 114 5:17-48 111,115 5:38-48 113 5:38-42 98 5:39 113 5:41 113 5:42 115 5:44 115 5:45-48 115 5:45 114 6:1-18 115 6:2-4 115 6:2 115 6:9-13 111 6:9 114 6:11 115 6:16-18 115 6:19-34 115 6:19-20 235 6:24 114 6:33-34 114

Sources 6:34 7:12 8-9 8:5-13 8:23-27 8:28-36 9:1-8 9:4 9:9 9:13 9:36 10:7-8 11:1—16:20 11:25 11:28-30 12:1-14 12:7 12:14 12:22-45 12:25 12:34 13:19-22 13:38-39 14:13-21 15:1-20 15:5 15:13 15:31-39 16:1-4 16:21—20:34 16:27-28 17:14 17:24-27 18:20 19-20 19:4 19:16-30 19:21 19:23-24 19:28 20:1-16 20:12 20:25-26 20:25

295

111,115 115 103 263 110 110 105 106 114 111,115 103 115 101 110 104 105 111,115 103 105 110 106 114 106 111 105 105 105 111 106 101 112 102 114 110 114 109 114 114 114 112 233 114 111 8,114,125

Ancient Matthew (cont.) 20:26-28 21:1—27:66 21:5-9 21:12-17 21:12-13 21:14 21:15 21:23 21:28—22:14 21:41 21:45-46 21:45 22:7 22:15-22 22:23-33 22:34-46 22:34-39 22:37-39 22:39 23 23:9 23:10 23:11-12 23:23 24:13 24:15-21 24:27-31 24:28 24:29 24:35 25:31-46 25:34 25:40 26:3-5 26:4 26:14 26:29 26:47 26:52 26:57-68 26:63-64 27:1-2 27:3

114 102 121 105 105 105 103 103 106 106 103 103 106 103,114 103 103 111 115 115 103,106 114 114 114 106,115 115 250 112 112 112 112 115 121 121 103 103 103 123 103 113 103 122 103,106 107

Sources 27:11-26 27:11 27:11a 27:11b 27:15-19 27:17 27:20-21 27:22 27:23-24 27:24-26 27:37 27:50 27:51-54 28:1-20 28:6-9 28:11-15 28:18-20 28:18 28:20

106 106 122 122 107 123 107 107,123 107 107 123 160 149 102 107 103,107 113 107,110 110

Mark 1:1 1:9-15 1:15 1:16-20 1:21-34 2:1-12 2:23-28 3:6 3:20-27 4:19 4:35-41 5:1-20 6:34 7:9-13 10 10:17-23 10:42-45 10:42 10:45 11:9-10 11:15-19 12:1-12 12:13-17

109 109 110 110,113 110 105 105 103 105 114 110 106,110 103 105 114 114 111,114 8,125 154 121 105 106 114,141

Ancient Mark

John

(cont.)

12:28-34 12:38-40 13:13 14:61 14:62 14:62b 15:1-15 15:2a 15:2b 15:9 15:12 15:15-20 15:18 15:24 15:26 15:34 15:37 15:38-39 16:1-7

111 103 115 122 122 122 106 122 122 123 123 146 123 153 123 157 160 149 107

Luke 2 2:8-12 2:51 3:12-14 3:14 4:14-19 10:42 10:43 11:43 14:7-11 19:38 22:24-26 22:25 22:26 22:67-70 23:2 23:3a 23:3b 23:38 23:44-45 23:46

Sources

219 219 187 141 263 6,85 125 125 236 236 121 131 8,125,130,131,141 125 122 141 122 122 123 149 160

1:49 2:19-22 3 3:3 3:5 3:12 3:14-15 6:15 8:28 10:18 12:12-19 12:13 12:15 12:31-33 13:1-3 16:28 16:33 18:1-9 18:29-31 18:33 18:36-37 18:36 18:38-39 18:39 19 19:1-3 19:3 19:4-6 19:10-11 19:11 19:12 19:14-15 19:15 19:16-37 19:16-18 19:19-22 19:21 19:23-25 19:23-24 19:24 19:25-27

121 145 142 142 142 142 159,161 121 159 159 159 121 121 159,161 161 161 140,159 161 156 122 161 142 156 123 153-55 146 123 156 161 159 123,156 156 123 140,143,150,151, 154,162 152,161 152,156,161 152 155 152,153,155,161 153-56 152,156,158,159, 161

298

Ancient John

(cont.)

19:26-30 19:28-30 19:28 19:30 19:31-37 19:36 19:36-37 20:30-31

158 152,156,161 154,156-59 158,160 153,162 156 154,156 143

Acts 3:1-26 4:1-22 4:8b-10 9:5 9:17 10 10:1-33 10:36-38 10:38 13:46-48 16 16:12 16:20 16:21 16:36-40 17:7 22:4-5 22:8 22:16 26:11-18 26:15

131 130 131 200 200 263 131 131 136 85 263 208 208 208 208 123 135 200 200 8,136 200

Sources 12:17 179 12:18-19 179 13 11,16,184-86,269,278 13:1-7 11,12,184-86 13:1 186,188 13:3 189 13:6 187 1

1:12-13 1:22-24 1:23 5:1 6:1 6:12-16 7 7:1-5 8:1 7:10 7:12 7:25 9:5 9:21 11:20-21 11:23-25 12:1 15 15:1-3 15:3 15:4 15:5-7 2

Romans 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:16 3:2 6:23 9:5 9:33 11:9 12:14

182 178 182 184 178 263 179 197 197 179

Corinthians 190 148 197 190 190 190 12,190 190 190 179,191 191 191 179 224 190 179 190 154 154 154 179 179

Corinthians

1:2 2:14-15 2:14 4:1 5:20 8 8:8 8:9 8:11

175 218 205 190 8,132,190 12,191 191 191 192

Ancient Galatians 1:19 2:20 3:13-14 3:13 4:4 4:5 5:11 5:22-26 5:24 6:2 6:12 6:14 6:17

299 Colossians

179 200 200 147,200-202,210 179 200 148,197 200 200 224 200,203 200 202

Ephesians 1:20—2:22 1:20-23 2:1-22 2:15-16 4 4:8-16 4:8-10 4:8 4:8b 6:10-17 6:12 6:18-20

Sources

203 203 203 211 204,207,210 13 203 204,211,218 204 263 13,214 8,132

1:15-20 l:15-18a l:18b-20 1:17 1:19-20 2:14-15 2:15 1

1:2 1:7 1:13 1:29-30 2 2:3 2:8 2:6-11 2:9-11 3:8 3:20 4:7 4:9

13,208 207 207 208 13,207 188 179,211 13,209,210,212 210 188 13,208,220 188,209 209

219 215 Timothy

1:17 2:1-2 2:2 2:3-6 2:5 6:12 6:13 6:15-16 6:15 6:16 2 2:2 2:3

215 217 215 215 179 217 219 13,215 215 215 216 217 13,215,217,219

Thessalonians

1 1:5 1

Philippians

Thessalonians

1:9 2:2 2:12 2:14 2:15-16 4 4-5 4:13-18 4:15 4:16-17 4:17 5:2-3a 5:3 2

13,212 212 212 213 213 13,212,213 205,217,225

221 222 187 222 191 222 179 222 221 221

Timothy 268 222,263

Ancient

300 2 Timothy 2:8 2:9 2:12 2:21 3:6

James

(cont.) 179 223 222 222 263

Titus 1:3 1:4 2:9 3:1 3:4-7

220 220 222 269 221

Philemon 8-10 9-10 9 13 21

Sources

8,132 223 223 223 223

1:9-11 1:10-11 2:1-7 2:2-4 2:2 2:5 2:6 2:15 4:7 4:13-17 4:13 4:14 5:1-7 5:1-6 5:2-3 5:4 5:4-5 5:6 1

Hebrews 2:7 2:15 3:7-19 4:11 — 10:25 4:16 5:11—6:6 6:7-12 10:19-22 10:22-39 10:26-39 10:32—12:2 11 11:36-38 12:1-29 12:1-11 12:4 12:28 13:13-16 13:13-14

187 248 248 249 248 248 248 250 248 248 249 248,250 251 250 249 248,251 250 250 250

Peter

1:1—2:10 2:3 2:4-5 2:9 2:13-17 2:13-14 2:14 2:18-25 2:18 2:20-25 2:21 2:22-25 3:1-7 3:1-6 3:6 3:8—4:19 5:5 2

236 234,236 236 233 233,235 232,236 232-35 233 187 232,234,237 234 236 232 234,235,237 235 233 235 233,236

240 247 240 240 240 269 241 239,241 222 85 242 242 239 242 242 239 187

Peter

2:1-10 2:1 2:10 2:13

247 246 246 246

Ancient 2 Peter 2:14-15 2:14 2:17-18 3:1-14

(cont.) 247 246 246 247

1 John 2:15-17 2:22-23 2:23 4:2-3 4:5 5:10 5:21 2

247 246 246 246 245 246 246

John

7 7-9

245 246

3 John 9-10

Sources

301

6:9-10 12:9-17 13:2b 13:4 13:5-6 13:6 13:12b-14 13:18 16:6 17:6 17:9 17:14

254 254 254 254 274 254 254 254 252,254 252,254 254 124

18 18:2 18:4-5 18:7b 18:24 19 19:6 20:4 22:10-16

254 254 255 254 252,254 85 124 252 255

247 OLD

Jude 4 5-7 8 14-16

246 246 246 247

Revelation 2-3 2:8-9 2:9 2:9b-10 2:10 2:13 2:14a 2:14b 2:20-23 2:20b 3:9 3:10 3:17-18 6:9-11

TESTAMENT

APOCRYPHA

253 253 252 253 252 252,253 253 253 253 253 252 252 253 252

2

Maccabees

4:2 6-7 7 3

129 107 112 Maccabees

3:19 6:24 4

129 129 Maccabees

18:6-8

238

Sirach 13:2-7 13:17-19 26:10 33:7 42:9-12

114 114 238 188 238

Ancient

302

Wisdom 13 14:12 16:11 16:24 19:14

of

Diognetus

Solomon 246 246 130 130 129

OLD TESTAMENT

124

Ignatius To the 10:1

Philadelphians 134 of Poly

carp

9:3

ofSedrach

14:1

7:4

Martyrdom

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Apocalypse

Sources

124

17:3

124

21:1

124

135 Polycarp

2

Baruch

29 73

111 111

Letter

Philippians

13:1

135

Shepherd

ofAristeas

275

133

Sibylline

To the

ofHermas

3:9 17:8

124 124

Oracles

5

OTHER ANCIENT

253

WRITERS D E A D SEA PesherNahum

SCROLLS (4Q169)

3-4II Temple

Rab. 147

Scroll

(11QT)

7 - 1 3 LXIV

Cicero Post

5.16

146

Demosthenes 147

Corona 43

NEW

Dio Chrysostom

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Acts of

126

TESTAMENT

2 De

Pilate

9:2

130

regno

26

126

D i o d o r u s Siculus APOSTOLIC FATHERS 1 59:3

Clement 130

Discourses 3.56.5 17.24.1 17.69.9 17.94.3

126 126 126,127 127

Ancient Diogenes

Laertius

6.78

187

Epictetus 1.4.19

187

Euripides Heracleidae 1252

126

Eusebius Historia 6.14.7

Sources 3.29 4.175 5.520 7.41-62 7.43 7.58-59 7.96 7.103 7.106-111

93 187 93 93 93 93 93 93 93

Pausanias 6.3.16

187

ecclesiastica 142

Philo De specialibus 1.272

Isocrates 4.95

legibus 129

188 Legatio

Josephus

14.9 15.9 15.373 15.387 15.409 16.311 16.335 16.161 18.1 18.6 20.249-251

122 122 122 102 122 102 134 134 93 105 103

Gaium 129 134

Polybius 289.4.9 Pseudo

187 Callisthenes

1.22.4

187

Quintilian Decl 274

147

Thucydides

War

1.166 1.282 1.388 2.293 2.330-332 2.353 2.358-394 2.410-418 2.433 3.8

ad

22 301-302

Antiquities

Jewish

303

135 122 122 105 103 107 107 103 187 93

Historia 2.45.2

238

Virgil Aen. 1.279

247

Ancient

304

IG

EPIGRAPHICAL CITATIONS Att

Mich.

13[1888] 61 Calendrical

171 Inscription

of9BC 1.4-5 1.17 11.34 11.46 IV.4-5 IV.6-8 IV.9-10 IV.10-14 IV. 15 IV.30 VI.4 VI.33-34 VI.35-38 VI.40-41 VI.45-46 VII.80

127 127 127 127 169 169 169 169 169 171 171 169 170 170 170 171

CIA 3.30 3.34 3.428 3.444 3.444a 3.63 4.428

172 172 127 173 173 172 171

CIG 1810 2629

172 172

IBM 4.894 4.906

Sources

170 166

II/III2 3274 II/III2 3278 VII 1835 VII 1836 VIII 1835 XII 2.35b XII 2.165b XII 2.168 XII 3.469 XII 3.1104 XII5 XII 5.556 XII 5.557

173 173 171 127,172 127 171 171 172 172 172 127 127,171 171

IGR 1.901 1.1294 1.10007 3.137 3.159 3.426 3.546 3.575 3.576 3.719 3.721 3.921 3.932 3.973 3.994 4.33 4.38 4.39 4.42 4.57 4.59 4.60 4.63 4.64 4.67 4.68 4.95 4.114

127 127 172 172 173 127,172 172 127 127 172 173 172 172 172 172 171 172 172 172 171 172 172 172 172 173 172 172 172

Ancient IGR ( c o n t . ) 4.201 4.303 4.304 4.305 4.306 4.307 4.309 4.311 4.312 4.314 4.315 4.317 4.318 4.320 4.584 4.929 4.975 4.977 4.1094 4.1173 4.1302 4.1304 4.1444 9.57 9.303 9.305 Inschrifien

Olympia

53 365 366 Inschrifien 381

172 171 172 von

Pergamon 173

IM 157b

173

MAMA 6.250

305 OGIS

127,172 172 171 172 172 171 172 127,172 127 172 172 172 172 173 173 171 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 127 127 127 von

Sources

173

90 458 533 583 666.2-7 668.5 814.22-23

166 127,167 172,173 173 128 128 128

Sardis 7.1 no. 8

172

SB 8897.1

127

SEG 11.922 36 [1986] 1092 SIG3 760 778 814

173 128 172 172 173

Syll3 810

173