Introduction



Christian Anarchist Readings of the BibleWith Special Reference to Romans 13Lloyd K. PietersenNewman Research Centre for the Bible and its ReceptionIntroductionThis paper reflects my ongoing research interests in reading the Bible from the margins as outlined in my keynote lecture at this conference last year. Over the last year I have become increasingly interested in anarchist readings of the Bible informed by the sixteenth century Anabaptists’ insistence on the separation of believing communities from the State. In this paper I will begin by rehearsing a short history of anarchism and highlighting the main Christian proponents of this political stance. I will then turn to some reflections on the Hebrew Bible from an anarchist perspective before turning, in the main part of my paper, to the anarchist Jesus and an anarchist reading of Romans 13.A short introduction to anarchismAnarchy in popular usage tends to denote a state of disorder, chaos and violence. But as a political philosophy, anarchism rejects the legitimacy of external government and of the State, and the imposition of any form of political authority, hierarchy or system of domination. Positively, anarchism promotes a vision of “a decentralized and self-regulating society consisting of a federation of voluntary associations of free and equal individuals.” Anarchism developed as a coherent ideology following the collapse of feudalism and emerged at the end of the 18th century in its modern form. In England William Godwin (1756-1836) gave the first clear statement of anarchist principles. In the 19th century the German philosopher Max Stirner (1806-1856) rejected both government and state and the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) was the first to call himself an anarchist, famously proclaiming “property is theft.” Proudhon was followed by Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) in Russia. The Italian Errico Malatesta (1853-1932) rejected Kropotkin's mechanistic approach and emphasised the importance of the will in social struggle. In the States Benjamin R Tucker (1854-1939) developed Proudhon's economic theories in an extreme individualist direction. Tolstoy (1828-1910) developed an anarchist critique of the state and in the 20th century Emma Goldman (1869-1940) added an important feminist dimension. Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) linked anarchism with social ecology. Probably the most well know contemporary anarchist thinker is the linguist, Noam Chomsky.Anarchism is a broad movement consisting of two main streams; individualist and social. Individualists are the heirs of Benjamin Tucker and are suspicious of any form of collectivism–considering this will inevitably lead to the tyranny of the group. The largest contemporary group of individualist anarchists are the anarcho-capitalists. They would like to dismantle government and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. They propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs. Social anarchists are considerably in the majority and, given Proudhon’s famous slogan mentioned earlier, do not consider anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists. In contemporary anarchist politics the most significant anarchist grouping is the anarcho-syndicalist. Syndicalists developed out of the revolutionary trade union movement of the nineteenth century. Labour syndicates would establish institutions of self-management as a model of a future society. Anarcho-syndicalism reached its zenith during the Spanish civil war when syndicates took over the industries in Catalunya and demonstrated that they were capable of running them on efficient and productive lines. The key theorists for anarcho-syndicalism are Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky who was profoundly influenced by Rocker.Christian AnarchismThe father of Christian anarchism is generally recognised as Leo Tolstoy who noted that the concept of a “Christian state” is a contradiction in terms. Tolstoy saw Jesus as the most rational being ever to walk the planet and, as such, distrusted all accounts of the miraculous. For him the Sermon on the Mount was central. In the general academic literature on anarchism much is made of Tolstoy as the leading thinker on Christian anarchism but mention must be made of several others. Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) is best known for his sociological work on the technological society. He writes as a French Calvinist and, although he does not think an anarchist society is possible, nevertheless he insists that the anarchist position is the only acceptable stance in the modern world.Biblically, love is the way, not violence . . . Not using violence against those in power does not mean doing nothing. I will have to show that Christianity means a rejection of power and a fight against it. This was completely forgotten during the centuries of the alliance of throne and altar, the more so as the pope became a head of state, and often acted more as such than as head of the church.If I rule out violent anarchism, there remains pacifist, antinationalist, anticapitalist, moral, and antidemocratic anarchism (i.e. that which is hostile to the falsified democracy of bourgeois states). There remains the anarchism which acts by means of persuasion, by the creation of small groups and networks, denouncing falsehood and oppression, aiming at a true overturning of authorities of all kinds as people at the bottom speak and organize themselves. All this is very close to Bakunin.But there is still the delicate point of participation in elections. Should anarchists vote? If so, should they form a party? For my part, like many anarchists, I think not. To vote is to take part in the organization of that false democracy that has been set up forcefully by the middle class. No matter whether one votes for the left or the right, the situation is the same. Again, to organize a party is necessarily to adopt a hierarchical structure and to wish to have a share in the exercise of power. We must never forget to what degree the holding of political power corrupts.Vernard Eller (1927-2007) wrote Christian Anarchy in 1987 and dedicates this book to Ellul. For his part, Ellul recommends Eller’s work in his 1991 volume. Eller’s particular stance on Romans 13 has been criticised by other Christian anarchists and I will offer a very different rendering later. The Catholic Worker Movement, founded in 1933, consistently describes itself as anarchist. Dorothy Day (1897-1980) is the most well known figure and was described by the director of the FBI as a threat to national security. Finally, mention should be made of the most thorough work on Christian anarchism to date–Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel (2011) which is based on his doctoral dissertation.Anarchists and the BibleThe Hebrew BibleFor Christian anarchists the period of the Judges represents the golden era of the Hebrew Bible. The refrain, repeated four times at the end of the book: “there was no king in Israel” has to be viewed against the Deuteronomist’s view of kingship spelled out particularly in 1 Samuel 8. In fact this latter text is seen as the pivotal text in the Hebrew Bible. In asking for a monarchy the people were committing themselves to centralised government, a standing army and taxation to support central administration. Inevitably the people would have to do “what is right in the king’s eyes” instead of “what was right in their own eyes” (Jud 17:6; 21:25). Admittedly the Deuteronomist uses this phrase negatively as he clearly wants people to do “what is right in the Lord’s eyes” (cf. 1 Kings 15:5, 11; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:3; 22:2). Nevertheless, for anarchists, doing what is right in one’s own eyes is preferable to having to obey a king!This speech placed in the mouth of Samuel is the harshest, most extensive criticism of monarchy in the Old Testament (see also Deut. 17:14–20). It is one of the most important pieces in the Old Testament on the abuse of public power. It is disputed whether this indictment of oppressive political power is post-Solomonic—and, in fact, a critique of Solomonic abuses—or whether it reflects an awareness of the nature of monarchy drawn from the evidence of neighboring states (Mendelsohn). Either way, the statement reflects what must have been a strongly held view among theological conservatives in ancient Israel who greatly feared centralized government. The culmination of political power and social organization in a state brought with it the redistribution and concentration of wealth, the monopoly of land control, and the nullification of local initiatives for justice and well-being. Ancient Israel had thrived on covenantal localism; monarchy in principle is opposed to such local possibility and initiative and to the vulnerability of covenanting.The governing verb of Samuel’s characterization of monarchy is the word “take” (vv. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). It is the business of a centralized government to “take,” whether by taxation, confiscation, or the draft. The taking of sons (vv. 11–12) is for military purposes. The taking of daughters (v. 13) reflects a luxurious court that needs subservient labor to operate. The seizure of fields, vineyards, and orchards (vv. 14–15) bespeaks a land monopoly not unlike contemporary forms of agribusiness. The king needs land to reassign to his most trusted allies as a way of sustaining a network of power and allegiance. The king will cut into Israel’s labor and the means of production of tribal life (v. 16) and eventually will impose a usurpatious tax (v. 17). The verse ominously mentions a tax of ten percent, which will reduce people over time to a social position of servitude. The seizures of a central government will disrupt older, less developed economic patterns.The Anarchist JesusNot surprisingly, Christian anarchists see the historical Jesus as the archetypal anarchist. The Sermon on the Mount is central to this perspective but also Jesus’ teaching on taxes.The Sermon on the Mount as an Anarchist Manifesto Christian anarchists make the Sermon on the Mount central and take seriously the commitment to non-violence contained therein. It is this commitment to non-violence, together with the recognition that the State is inevitably an instrument of violence, that leads to their rejection of the State. They do not accept Luther’s distinction between a Christian acting as an individual (to whom these words apply) and the Christian acting as a State official. As Tolstoy states eloquently: “Government is violence, Christianity is meekness, non-resistance, love. And, therefore, government cannot be Christian, and a man who wishes to be a Christian must not serve government.” Furthermore, many also take Jesus’ comments on not judging in Matt 7:1-5 to be an indictment on the entire judicial system. This system is unchristian both because it resists evil and because it involves judging. So a Christian, based on this interpretation of Jesus’ statement, cannot be a judge, cannot take part in any trial and cannot take a fellow human being to court. Tolstoy tends to treat the discussions in the Sermon on the Mount about not resisting evil and not judging together. For him both condemn the State’s resistance to what it has judged to be evil. The former places emphasis on the police force and the military; the latter on the judicial system–both are fundamental to the State’s existence.Tolstoy’s approach to Jesus’ injunction to love enemies is also instructive. He argues that “enemy” is almost always used in a public and national sense rather than private or personal. Consequently, Jesus’ “you have heard it said ...” applies to Israel as a nation–“neighbour” and the rest of the nations–“enemy.” But Jesus calls now for love of enemy and that is precisely what states are unable to do. “The state, however, does none of that. It treats its nationals differently to foreigners. It stirs up patriotism, prepares for war and goes to war. It discriminates between good and evil domestically. It institutionalises love of friends and hatred of enemies.”The State also contravenes Jesus’ injunction not to swear or take oaths in Matt 5:33-37. “Oath taking is fundamental to military and therefore political power. The oath of allegiance creates the legal basis for the maintenance of the disciplined unity of large numbers of [people], on which all State power ultimately rests.”Jesus’ comments about not worrying in Matt 6:25-34 speak for anarchists to concerns about national security which also lie at the heart of contemporary nation-states.Finally, Christian anarchists see the Sermon on the Mount as an unpacking of the implications of the Golden Rule in Matt 7:12 and see this rule as at the root of anarchist morality. “If you would not be exploited, then you must not exploit others. If you would not be ruled, then you must refuse to rule others.”Jesus on Taxation. Mark 12:13-17 and parallels, with Jesus’ famous statement; “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” is often taken to support a two realms doctrine. The state is concerned with the material and temporal realm whereas God is concerned with the spiritual and eternal realm. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus is stating that taxes are lawful in response to the question posed by the Pharisees and Herodians. The question is described as a trap. This means that if Jesus were to say an outright “yes” to the question he would have alienated at least some in the crowd. Of course, if he were to say “no” then there would be a clear basis for bringing an accusation against him to the Romans. Interestingly, Luke reports that precisely this accusation was made to Pilate at Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:2): “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” The rise of the Roman resistance movement coincided with the introduction of Roman taxation in 6 CE, so this question is of huge political significance. First, it is important that Jesus himself does not have a coin–he has to ask for one. So he has nothing that belongs to Caesar himself. Second, the image and inscription are, of course, Caesar’s and indicate the emperor’s ownership. So, for those who use Caesar’s money, as they have bought into the system they must expect that the system will make demands in the form of taxation. So, Jesus is saying “yes” to those who have bought into the State’s economic system. But Jesus hasn’t! He has no coins! “A carpenter (Mark 6.3) who is not engaged in his craft, fishermen who have left their fishing gear by the lake (Mark 1.16-20), a publican who has left his post (Mark 2.14) have no income and therefore cannot be taxed by their ruler–nor could they be taxed by the Roman authorities. In fact they had escaped taxation long since–at the price of a very uncertain existence.” Furthermore, reference to the ε?κ?ν of Caesar followed by a reference to what is God’s strongly suggests the idea of humanity being made in the image of God. So money belongs to Caesar, let him have it, but if you belong to God then you have to give yourselves wholly to him. Far from advocating two realms, therefore, Jesus here cryptically calls his followers to a life free from the system. If this isn’t anarchic I don’t know what is!One further example concerns Jesus’ enigmatic handling of the temple tax (Matt 17:24-27). It is Peter who says that Jesus does pay the tax. But Jesus’ response to Peter suggests strongly that he does not–as a child of God he is free. Here is Ellul’s interpretation of this Matthean passage:Jesus first states that he does not owe the tax. The half-shekel tax was the temple tax ... Jesus claims that he is a son, not merely a Jew but the Son of God. Hence he plainly does not owe this religious tax. Yet it is not worth causing offense for so petty a matter, that is, causing offense to the little people who raise the tax, for Jesus does not like to cause offense to the humble. He thus turns the matter into a subject of ridicule. That is the point of the miracle. The power which imposes the levy is ridiculous, and he thus performs an absurd miracle to show how unimportant the power is. The miracle displays the complete indifference of Jesus to ... the temple authorities ... Catch a fish–any fish–and you will find the coin in its mouth. We find once again the typical attitude of Jesus. He devalues political and religious power. He makes it plain that it is not worth submitting and obeying except in a ridiculous way.As I have argued elsewhere, in connection with the parable of the dishonest manager in Luke 16:1-9, Jesus’ comments in the hearing of toll collectors strongly suggests a call to tax resistance on his part. Thus, from a sampling of passages in the Gospels we can see how Christian anarchists arrive at an anarchist Jesus. We turn, finally, to another taxation passage–this time from Paul. Romans 13:1-7Traditional Interpretation The received wisdom concerning Rom 13:1-7 is that here, in his most systematic and theological letter, Paul clearly articulates his “theology of the state.” In Romans 1-8 Paul outlines his mature theological reflection on his central theme: justification by faith. After a parenthetical discussion concerning the fate of Israel in Romans 9-11, Paul turns to the practical application of his theology in chapters 12-16. Included in this practical section is his exhortation in chapter 13 that believers are to be good citizens, subject to the ruling authorities and ready to pay all taxes demanded. This chapter has been used throughout Christendom to justify Christian acquiescence to the state. One particular example will suffice to illustrate this:The weekend after George W. Bush ordered the bombing and military invasion of Iraq in what is customarily called the Second Iraq War, I walked through down town Hannibal, Missouri, a town that relies for tourism on its fame as the home town of American author and humorist Mark Twain. Like many town centers across the United States, the Hannibal main street was decked out in U.S. flags, yellow ribbons, and placards urging passersby to “Support Our Troops.” One solitary sign of dissent hung in a coffee shop window, a single typed page inviting citizens to an evening “discussion” of the war.The woman who had posted the modest invitation told me that neighbors had already challenged her “anti-Americanism.”?“It’s hard to question the war in Hannibal,” she said. When I asked how that squared with the town’s public celebration of the best known member of the Anti-Imperialist League, she answered, “that would be news here. Most people in Hannibal don’t know anything about Mark Twain beyond The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.”A tour of the local museums bore out her point. An exhibit dedicated to Mark Twain’s literary career focused almost exclusively on his humorous writings. I found two references to Twain’s literary tours of Europe, but not a hint that he had spoken regularly and often in Europe, as well as in the United States, on behalf of the Anti-Imperialist League. On one wall, a turn-of-the-century newspaper cartoon depicted Twain seated upon a throne, being paid court by the “Crowned Heads of Europe”; behind his throne, a single figure labeled “Leopold” sat dejected, his head on his fist. The museum caption described Twain’s fame in Europe but offered no explanation of Leopold. No one would learn in this museum of the horrific atrocities carried out in the Congo by King Leopold of Belgium, or of Twain’s fervent efforts, alongside other activists in Europe and the United States, to make those atrocities an international cause célèbre.Newspaper advertisements and hastily erected signs around town invited residents and visitors to attend “prayer services for our troops” at any of a number of local churches. In most other American cities, the signs might have been unexceptional, but they struck an ironic note in Hannibal, where every gift shop and museum store sold several different editions of Mark Twain’s short, bitterly satirical essay, War Prayer. The essay tells of a mysterious stranger who interrupts the eloquent prayers of a local pastor on a Sunday morning and points out to the congregation that an unspoken prayer has accompanied their spoken words to heaven. Their prayer for victory is also a prayer for the God of love to blight the land and the homes of the enemy, to leave widows and orphans desolate and without hope.I saw no invitations from churches to discuss the War Prayer. Except for that single conversation in a coffee shop, there was no indication that anyone in Mark Twain’s home town was the least troubled by invitations to join in prayers (in the phrasing of a ubiquitous bumper sticker) to “Support Our Troops.” Indeed, the only literary allusion informing the cultural discourse of Hannibal, Missouri, accompanied one local pastor’s letter in the local newspaper. He wrote, “It is the duty of all Christians to stand with their president in a time of war (Rom 13:1–7).”If Hannibal were exceptional, I would not recount the experience. My point is that even in one town where one might have expected the flicker of a thoroughly American anti-war sentiment to be visible, discussion could be managed, and dissent largely precluded (in public as well as in the churches), by an appeal to Paul’s letter to the Romans.Certainly a straightforward reading of our text would appear to support the Hannibal pastor’s contention that Christians should stand with their president. The text suggests that the authorities are appointed by God and so to resist the God-appointed authority is to resist God resulting in duly deserved punishment. But is it really as straightforward as this? Does Paul really provide here a theology of the state? Or should we see that even Romans should first be understood in its first-century, contingent context before appropriating its message for today?Another look at Romans “[A] fully contextualized reading of the New Testament texts must address ‘the reality of empire’ as ‘an omnipresent, inescapable, and overwhelming sociopolitical reality.’” An increasing number of New Testament scholars are recognising that the language of the New Testament regularly subverts imperial claims. Romans begins with a declaration of the “good news” that Jesus is the royal and powerful “son of God” to whom “the whole world” owes loyal allegiance (1:3-5) and continues with the assertion that this “good news” involves “salvation” and “justice” (1:16-17). It was standard imperial rhetoric from Augustus onwards that the emperor was “son of a god,” that his accession to the throne was “good news,” that the Pax Romana brought universal “salvation” and “justice,” and that consequently the whole world owed Caesar its allegiance. The opening declaration of Romans then, written to believers in the capital city of the Roman Empire, should be understood in the context that “to proclaim Jesus as Son of God was deliberately denying Caesar his highest title and that to announce Jesus as Lord and Savior was calculated treason.”Furthermore, Paul elsewhere describes how he was beaten three times with rods (2 Cor 11:25)—this was a Roman punishment inflicted at the hands of civic magistrates by lictors (their attendants). So Paul himself knew from personal experience that it simply was not the case that the governing authorities were only a cause for fear for wrong-doers! So why does Paul in this particular letter provide such a seemingly glowing account of the governing authorities?Taxes The key to understanding this lies in Paul’s specific mention of taxation. The subject comes out of the blue, even within the context of this passage, and Paul nowhere else mentions taxes. Here he mentions two types: phoros (translated as “taxes” by the NRSV)—tribute tax; and telos (translated as “revenue” by the NRSV)—indirect taxes. Paul wrote Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57 CE. The Roman historian, Tacitus, speaks of such unrest in 58 CE concerning taxation that Nero considered abolishing all indirect taxation but was dissuaded by his advisors on the grounds that this would soon lead to the demand to abolish direct taxation too which would be disastrous for the empire (Ann. 13.50-51). Paul was writing in the period when concern over taxation was beginning to raise its head. Although tribute taxes were not paid by the general population of Rome itself we now know that Nero compelled immigrants to Rome to pay tribute levied by the provinces in which they resided at the previous census in 53/54 CE. As Jews were expelled from Rome under an edict from Claudius in 49 CE, and did not return to the city until after Nero’s accession in late 54, they would have been forced to pay direct taxes on the basis of the province in which they resided during their expulsion. This would, therefore, be true of Jewish Christians who would recently have returned to Rome just prior to Paul’s letter. The specific circumstances Paul is addressing here, therefore, concern the possibility of Jewish Christians becoming embroiled in the unrest over taxation and once again facing the wrath of the authorities. Following the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 49 the church at Rome would have been exclusively Gentile and Jewish Christians would have found themselves significantly in the minority on returning to Rome. Paul is concerned about their “weak” status and does not want any further distress to fall upon them. The “weak” of Romans 14-15 are almost certainly Jewish Christians who would have to abstain from meat and wine to avoid any association with idolatry and thus maintain kashrut. The “strong” are effectively powerful Gentile Christians who are “powerful” (not “strong in faith”) due to their relative social status in Rome compared to returning Jewish Christian immigrants. On this reading Romans 9-11 is no parenthesis but forms the climax of Paul’s argument. Although the Roman congregations are undoubtedly mixed, Paul addresses the majority of the letter to Gentile Christians (Rom 1:5-6) who, from their position of strength in Rome, are tempted to despise their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters. Paul has strong words to say to them in Romans 11:13-24:13?Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry 14?in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. 15?For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! 16?If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy. 17?But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, 18?do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 19?You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20?That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21?For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 22?Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23?And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24?For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. We can only speculate but it could well be that Paul heard of the plight of Jewish Christians who had returned to Rome from Prisca and Aquila whom he greets in Rom 16:3 and who, according to Acts 18:2, had been expelled from Rome under Claudius’ edict. Paul’s concerns here in Romans 13 are intensely pastoral. He urges believers in Rome to submit to the governing authorities and, in particular, he reminds them that they pay their taxes in order for the state to function effectively in its appropriate role of upholding the good and punishing wrong-doing. Any negative action on the part of Christians in the context of the increasing unease in Rome about the burden of taxation would be likely to be crushed, especially if the blame should be laid on Jews given that they had already experienced expulsion from Rome twice within 30 years. Earlier, in 19 CE, following an incident in which a high placed Roman woman was swindled out of considerable funds by some Jewish embezzlers who claimed the money was for the temple in Jerusalem, the emperor Tiberius drafted 4,000 Jews of military age into service in Sardinia and expelled all other Jews unless they repudiated their faith.The problem for interpreters though is that, despite this contextual indicator concerning taxes, the opening exhortation appears to be timeless and universal. But, in fact, the earliest interpreters of Paul did not read this text in this way. Instead, early Christian martyrs both insisted that they were exhorted to submit to the governing authorities and yet at the same time refused to comply with their commands to worship the emperor. For example, Mart. Pol. 10 states:But as [the proconsul] continued to insist, saying, “Swear by the Genius of Caesar,” [Polycarp] answered: “If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the Genius of Caesar, as you request, and pretend not to know who I am, listen carefully: I am a Christian. Now if you want to learn the doctrine of Christianity, name a day and give me a hearing.” The proconsul said: “Persuade the people.” But Polycarp said: “You I might have considered worthy of a reply, for we have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm; but as for these, I do not think they are worthy, that I should have to defend myself before them.”Notice how Polycarp adds the rider “as long as it does us no harm” to Paul’s injunction to submit to the authorities. Furthermore, submission does not necessarily mean obedience. In the context of Romans 13 it means refusing to resist (v. 2) and, as I have argued above, specifically in the context of unrest over direct taxation. “As for the exhortation to submit to the authorities, it is purely negative. It means withdrawal, nonparticipation, non-involvement. Even if revolution is always a just condemnation of what is established, this is not due to any sense to the act of rebels. The conflict into which rebels plunge is the conflict between the order of God and what is established. Rebels finally establish an order which bears the same features as the preceding order.” Irony Furthermore, there is a degree of irony in this text. Not only, as I have already stated, did Paul himself know that the governing authorities were not always the steadfast upholders of the good as he claims here but also within a few years of writing the letter Nero would persecute the Christians in Rome ruthlessly and Paul himself would eventually be executed by him! In addition, believers are encouraged in verse 3 to do good so that they will have no fear of the authorities but cryptically Paul states in verse 7 that believers should fear those to whom fear is due (NRSV translates this as “respect”). It seems there is a coded message here for those who have ears to hear. Yes, believers are urged to do good, as they have already been exhorted to in Rom 12:21. This should result in not fearing the authorities who are supposed to uphold the good, but Paul knows from experience that, in fact, fear is still owed given that the authorities can ruthlessly punish those they perceive to be a threat. One last hint of irony is to be found in Paul’s comment that the authorities do not “bear the sword in vain.” For Nero’s boast was that, unlike his predecessors, he had no need to resort to the sword.Calpurnius Siculus presented a prophecy that described Nero’s accession as the dawning of a golden age in which no one could remember the use of the sword. The goddess of war would turn upon herself the weapons that had previously been deployed in warfare; “fair peace” would come; “clemency … has broken every maddened sword-blade.… Peace in her fullness shall come; knowing not the drawn sword, she shall renew once more the reign of Saturn in Latium” (Eclogue 1.45–60).The first Einsiedeln Eclogue described a paradise inaugurated by Nero: “We reap with no sword, nor do towns in fast-closed walls prepare unutterable war.” No woman anywhere gave birth to a future enemy of Rome; “unarmed, our youth can dig the fields, and the boy, trained to the slow-moving plow, marvels at the sword hanging in the abode of his fathers” (25–31).In the speech he presented to Nero, Seneca put into the emperor’s mouth the boast that he had surpassed even his ancestor Augustus, who had come to power only through warfare: “With all things at my disposal, I have been moved neither by anger nor youthful impulse to unjust punishment.… With me the sword is hidden, nay, is sheathed; I am sparing to the utmost of even the meanest blood; no man fails to find favor at my hands though he lack all else but the name of man” (Clem. 1.2–4).Seneca continued by flattering the emperor that his gift to the world was “a state unstained by blood, and your prideful boast that in the whole world you have shed not a drop of human blood is the more significant and wonderful because no one ever had the sword put into his hands at an earlier age” (11.3). Nero would so excel among the Caesars that he would need no bodyguard for his protection; “the arms he wears are for adornment only” (13.5).To discern ironic traces in this passage is not to say that Paul intends the entire passage to be read ironically as a subversion of imperial claims but neither, given the comments above, can it be read as a straightforward endorsement of power. Instead, we should view Paul’s approach here as exemplifying what the political scientist James C. Scott calls the “voice under domination.”Voice Under Domination Scott’s work documents the strategies employed by subordinate groups in their interactions with the dominant elites. He notes that public discourse cannot straightforwardly indicate what subordinates actually believe—it represents the view of the dominant. What Scott discovers is that subordinates do not normally engage in either complete compliance or in overt collective defiance of the authorities. Instead the public utterances of subordinates will inevitably be shaped to appeal to the expectations of the powerful. What needs to be attended to are the “hidden transcripts” that reveal the true perspectives of subordinates. Romans 13:1-7 reveals glimpses of such a hidden transcript. First, as Yoder points out, Paul does not state that God ordains the ruling authorities but rather that he puts them in order (tetagmenai 13:1).Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. The sergeant does not produce the soldiers he drills; the librarian does not create nor approve of the book she or he catalogs and shelves. Likewise God does not take the responsibility for the existence of the rebellious “powers that be” or for their shape or identity; they already are.Second, as already stated, Paul’s statement concerning both the sword and the fear owed to the authorities flies in the face of his earlier comment that authority will reward good behaviour and punish bad. Cicero, for example, held that fear and the threat of force were necessary only for insubordinate and uncivilized peoples. Citizens would consent naturally and willingly (Resp. 5.6, 3.41). “Clearly Paul has a different view. The Roman sword is still wielded, provoking terror (phobos, 13:4). Thus one’s posture must be one of ‘subjection’ or ‘subordination’ rather than revolt (13:2).” Finally, although Paul talks of returning what they “owe” to others, whether tribute taxes, indirect taxes, fear or honour (13:7), in the very next verse he exhorts believers to “owe no one anything except love.”It would appear that Paul’s stance here is similar to that of his Jewish contemporary, Philo. By using allegorical interpretation Philo can disguise a hidden transcript of defiance. For example, in Somn. 2.90, he states, concerning Abraham’s obeisance to the Hittites (Gen 23:7):For it was not out of any feeling of respect for those who by nature and race and custom were the enemies of reason … that he brought himself to do obeisance. Rather it was just because he feared their power at the time and their formidable strength and cared to give no provocation.Just so, as Philo reveals his true stance via his allegorical interpretation of Gen 23:7 so Paul likewise in Rom 13:1-7 exercises caution and cares “to give no provocation.”Romans 13 in its Immediate Context In the previous chapter, Paul has urged his readers in Rome, as far as possible, “to live peaceably with all” and not to take vengeance on themselves. He then goes on to speak of “enemies” and the appropriate response to them, urging his readers to “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:18-21). Our passage follows on immediately from this and echoes the language of not taking vengeance in counselling against resistance (anthistēmi) and repeats the language of “good” (agathos) and “evil” (kakos) in 13:3, 4. The clear links with what precedes argue against this text being an interpolation as some scholars have previously argued. Indeed, the language of “enemies” immediately preceding our text suggests, following Scott, that Paul is finding a voice under domination in this passage and that, despite the public transcript of “submission” contained therein, the hidden transcript suggests that the authorities envisaged should be regarded in some way as “enemies.” Thus submitting to the authorities is a way of overcoming evil with good. It is a way of loving enemies. In this sense, Romans 13 is a Pauline exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount. In 12:2 Paul exhorts believers not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. Christians are to live transformed lives which do not conform to Graeco-Roman ideals of honour and shame; instead they are to “outdo one another in showing honour” (12:10). In 12:14 believers are exhorted to bless those who persecute them and in 12:16 to show solidarity with the oppressed (NRSV translates tapeinos as “lowly” but in the LXX it has the connotations of low social status and being downtrodden). Finally, the vices outlined in 13:13 are associated particularly in Graeco-Roman literature with symposia or drinking parties and the last pair with “the political and social factions and infighting characteristic of Rome, at this period no less than others.” Paul ends this section with a clear critique of the society that he does not expect his readers to conform to.ConclusionPaul’s exhortation to show solidarity with the oppressed resonates well with anarchist protest against corrupt and disempowering practices by those in power. Although, in his day, any overt protest was unthinkable, the hidden transcript unveiled by the above reading of Romans 13 informed by the work of James C. Scott, suggests that Paul would have been quite at home with contemporary anarchists and, with them, would be a passionate advocate of mutuality and economic sharing. Paul, on this reading, is quite the anarchist! So, from the most unlikely text, we discover a Paul potentially amenable to anarchism. We have, therefore, both an anarchist Paul and an anarchist Jesus. Surely, this is the foundation for Christian anarchy? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download