Theology, Article Review Example

Mackenzie evaluates approaches to the so-called ‘political Paul’, i.e. the idea that the Apostle Paul articulated a theology that was politically subversive with respect to the Roman Empire. The first of the three approaches Mackenzie evaluates is the claim that Paul was explicitly criticizing the Roman Empire and the whole socio-political order it represented. The second of the three approaches is the idea that Paul was subverting imperial ideology—ergo, this approach argues for a more subtle reading of the apostle than does the first. Finally, the third approach McKenzie evaluates is the idea that Paul was proffering, in his theology, not an explicit challenge or covert subversion of empire, but rather an alternative to Rome. Mackenzie argues, first, that the identification of supposed parallels between language used by early Christians and language used by the imperial cult is notoriously subjective: the mere fact that Christians used words such as kurios and christos for Christ, and euangelion for the gospel, for example, does not necessarily mean that they were drawing from and attempting to undermine the imperial cult, simply because the latter used these terms as well. Mackenzie notes that Paul does not explicitly contrast the Gospel with the imperial cult; in fact, Paul goes to some lengths to minimize conflict between the Roman state and social order and the Christian church.[1]

A key piece of scriptural evidence here is, not surprisingly, Romans 13:1-7. Here, while Mackenzie recognizes the need to appreciate this passage in the broader context of Paul’s teachings—it is not the sum total of his views on the matter—he is also clear that the passage is a powerful indictment of the arguments for a ‘political Paul’, since the apostle does call for believers to respect authorities. Mackenzie points out that this is actually quite consistent with the apostle’s teachings in other passages: “Believers are to live quiet lives (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and love their neighbours (Romans 12:18).”[2] Indeed, Paul’s overwhelming emphasis in these and many other passages is not that of a critique or subversion of Roman Empire and –society, but rather on opposition to “sin, Satan and death.”[3]

Taking this much more eternal perspective, the apostle minimizes conflict with the Roman Empire. However, this does not mean that there is not still tension: indeed, Mackenzie gives the “political Paul” approaches due credit for pointing out that the Gospel of Christ as preached by Paul did constitute a very particular kind of challenge to the Roman Empire and the social, political and religious order it represented. Specifically, the Gospel of Christ necessarily posed certain challenges to the imperial cult, because the claims that the latter advanced for the emperor conflicted with claims Paul advanced for Christ. As such, Mackenzie grants that there was a kind of inevitable tension between the two, a tension that Paul nevertheless did his utmost to ameliorate in order to focus on spiritual things.[4] Based on these arguments and evidences, I find Mackenzie’s the most convincing article of the three.

Lull reviews a number of perspectives on the “Paul-against-empire” debate, which collectively run essentially the entire spectrum of opinion. He touches on the work of scholars who argued for anti-empire readings, as well as the claims of parallels between the Gospel of Christ as proclaimed by Paul and the imperial cult. For example, Kim argued that even if Paul was not a revolutionary, the fact that he spent time in imperial prisons must have meant that he was either engaged in civil disobedience, or was perceived by the authorities as having done so. I find this a relatively weak argument: of course Paul’s preaching landed him in trouble with imperial authorities on some occasions, but this is consonant with many long-standing approaches to Paul’s message, i.e. a recognition of the ways in which the Gospel was perceived to be strange and troublesome to many at the time. Moreover, as Mackenzie explained, Paul went to great lengths to attempt to minimize conflict between the church and the empire. Lull’s review is on firmer ground in presenting evidence that Paul’s message offers many contrasts to prevailing imperial ideology and Roman social assumptions of the time. A case in point is the centrality of the crucified Christ: “God not only deified someone who died on a Roman cross, but also made him ‘the object for the oath of loyalty administered by all the [human and divine] powers’ otherwise demanded for the Caesars.”[5]

That the Gospel as proclaimed by Paul upends many of the traditional conceptions and assumptions that underpinned the Greco-Roman world and the social system of the Roman Empire in the first century CE is certainly a valuable insight. And to be sure, Lull’s review provides plenty of evidence of this, notably the adoption and citizenship of all believers in Christ. Passages like Philippians 3:20 establish a vision of believers as “’first among equals’ as ‘citizens’ of the ‘commonwealth in heaven,’ from which they are ‘expecting a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.’”[6] The centrality of Christ, a victim of the violence of the Roman state, is certainly a case in point here as well. And to be fair, Lull also presents Romans 13:1-7, although in my opinion he does not go far enough in discussing its central relevance for understanding Paul’s perspectives on the Roman state. All in all, I found Lull’s review contained some compelling and useful information, but was not adequately critical of questionable perspectives that should be rightly consigned to the fringes of interpretation.[7]

Oakes presents a number of attitudes about Rome characteristic of the time, in order to ascertain how the church at Rome to whom Paul addressed the epistle of Romans likely perceived the Roman Empire. Oakes argues that although not without their share of ambivalence, provincial attitudes toward Rome were mostly positive and characterized by awe. Drawing on Cicero, Oakes holds that taxation was the greatest grievance of provincials, but presents the period of the Early Principate in which Paul lived as one of relatively low taxation, and generally positive attitudes towards Rome on the part of provincials. Oakes rightly points out that the period in question compares quite positively with the disruption of the civil wars of the first century BC and the heavy taxation in Asia at the time, and argues that the primary attitudes of provincials toward Rome would have been feelings of awe at its wealth and size. This strikes me as a bit simplistic and hasty a generalization, given the large and diverse populations in question. Perhaps conquered societies would not have seen social inequality as a consequence of Roman rule, but what about local perceptions of collusion between provincial elites and Rome?[8]

Oakes’s analysis of Jewish perspectives, while brief, is compelling, highlighting the reasons for Jewish animosity towards Rome on the basis of Roman political control, and of course, the profound theological differences between Judaism and Roman beliefs. Oakes also presents compelling evidence, notably from Acts 4:19, that Christian emphasis on the word of God over any and all other authorities was a denial of the full extent of the imperium claimed by Rome. Oakes also explains that texts such as 1 Thess. 5:3 anticipate the destruction of the Roman order with the Second Coming of Christ. Based on all of these perspectives, Oakes presents one view of Romans 13:1-7 “as essentially pragmatic, seeing Paul as supporting most of the Emperor’s exercise of authority because it had proved, in the main, beneficial”, with another option being the aforementioned provincial awe at Rome’s size, power, and affluence.[9] On balance, however, I don’t find this as compelling as the Mackenzie piece, which presents a much more thorough, useful, and nuanced view of the passage in question.

Bibliography

Lull, David J. “Review Essays: Paul and Empire.” Religious Studies Review 36.4 (2010): 251-262.

Mackenzie, Ed. “The quest for the political Paul: assessing the apostle’s approach to Empire.” European Journal of Theology, 20.1 (2011): 40-50.

Oakes, Peter. “Christian Attitudes to Rome at the Time of Paul’s Letter.” Review and Expositor, 100, pp. 103-111.

[1] Ed Mackenzie, “The quest for the political Paul: assessing the apostle’s approach to Empire,” in European Journal of Theology, 20.1 (2011): 41-44.

[2] Mackenzie, “The quest for the political Paul”, 43-46.

[3] Mackenzie, “The quest for the political Paul”, 46.

[4] Mackenzie, “The quest for the political Paul”, 46.

[5] David J. Lull, “Review Essays: Paul and Empire”, in Religious Studies Review 36.4 (2010): 252-255.

[6] Lull, “Review Essays”, 255.

[7] Lull, “Review Essays”, 255-256.

[8] Peter Oakes, “Christian Attitudes to Rome at the Time of Paul’s Letter”, Review and Expositor, 100, pp. 104-107.

[9] Oakes, “Christian Attitudes to Rome at the Time of Paul’s Letter”, pp. 107-110.