Cicirelli 1 PAUL OF TARSUS: AN APOLOGIST FOR THE STATE Perhaps the central preoccupation of Jews living under the pagan leadership of Greece and, later, Rome was the extent to which this foreign rule ought to be obeyed. Or whether it should be obeyed at all. If the authority of the emperor demanded, for instance, that all temples in a given region bear an image of Jupiter or Artemis, but Mosaic Law claimed there is only one true God, El/Jehovah, and no images of Him should be produced, then a devout Jew was forced to reconcile an honest practice of his faith with his otherwise secular citizenship. This problem did not go away during the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, one could argue that the problem only got worse, as the Mosaic Law was reinterpreted. By the time of Paul of Tarsus, the Jesus Movement had to confront, in all of its scattered churches, this problem of allegiance: In whom or what do they trust? In the Law of the Torah? In the emperor and his prefects? Or in the person of Jesus Christ? In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, the Synoptic Gospels make clear that our faith is to reside solely in Him. The apostle Paul, however, was too willing to concede legitimacy to the state and, in doing so, violated Jesus most fundamental teaching: To love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind (Lk 10:27). THE GOSPELS Each of the Synoptic Gospels presents a Jesus who is rebellious. In every account of His death, Jesus is crucified at the hands of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Mt
Cicirelli 2 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33). Because it was especially agonizing and prolonged one s death, crucifixion was the capital punishment Rome used to send a message to others thinking of committing sedition. Crucified subjects were an example to the rest of the Roman populace (McDonough). So what did Jesus do to warrant such capital punishment? There is one key event, attested to in each of the Synoptic Gospels, that encapsulates Jesus entire theology. This is the question about paying taxes to Rome, also known as the Render Unto Caesar passage (Mt 22:15-22; Mk 12:13-17; Lk 20:20-26). The Gospels describe an encounter during which the Pharisees ask Jesus whether it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor? Jesus answers the question but does so in the enigmatic way of Judean rabbis. He tells the Pharisees to bring him a denarius (it s worth noting that Jesus Himself is not carrying the money of the empire). Then, pointing to the image on the coin, He asks whose head and whose title it is. The Pharisees, of course, answer, The emperor s, at which point Jesus tells them, Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor s, and to God the things that are God s. Some have interpreted this passage as Jesus advocating Roman taxation and, by extension, taxation in general. The truth, however, is more complex. The first detail to note comes at the beginning of each Gospel account. The Pharisees are described as wanting to trap Jesus. Why is their question about taxes a trap? On the one hand, if Jesus openly denies that His followers should pay taxes, the Pharisees could report Him to the governor for sedition. On the other hand, if He claims that His followers should pay taxes to the emperor (who, in the eyes of Rome, had the
Cicirelli 3 divine 1 right to rule), the Pharisees, being strict interpreters of the Law, could hold Him in violation of the commandment to worship no other gods but God. This is the double bind Jesus is presented with. Now, His answer cannot simply be interpreted as pay your taxes. First of all, if His answer meant that and only that, it would not have amazed the Pharisees (Mt 22:22; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:26). Luke s Gospel even adds that, because of Jesus answer, the Pharisees are unable to trap him and become silent. To be sure, there are a number of other occasions, in the Synoptic Gospels and elsewhere, when the Pharisees (and others) are stumped by the answers Jesus gives. Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe another incident in which the chief priests 2 of the temple question Jesus authority. He answers their question with a question of His own. [A]nswer me, He says, and I will tell you by what authority I [perform miracles] (Mk 11:29). He then asks whether John s baptism comes from heaven or from man. The question is itself a double bind for the chief priests, and they know it. On the one hand, if they answer from heaven, Jesus can criticize them for being hypocrites and not believing John. On the other hand, if they say John s baptism is from man, the crowd in the temple, who all believe John is a prophet, might threaten the chief priests. Stumped, therefore, they tell Jesus they do not know where John s baptism comes from, and Jesus, as per the arrangement, does not tell them where He gets His authority. 1 Traditionally, Roman emperors did not achieve divine status until they died and were, thus, apotheosized though White notes some exceptions. Domitian, for example, received the title Dominus et Deus during his lifetime (286). 2 Although, as White points out, [the Pharisees] had no connection to the priestly tradition, [and thus] their interpretation of Torah was often at odds with that of the Temple authorities or scribes, in the Gospels, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and priests all serve a similar function: that of entrapping Jesus in His words (79).
Cicirelli 4 This account of the chief priests in the temple is a useful lens through which to view the Render Unto Caesar passage. When Jesus tells the Pharisees to give to the emperor and give to God He is, in effect, answering their double bind with a double bind of His own. This is what amazes them. He does not say, Pay your taxes, and He does not say, Do not pay your taxes. He says, If you follow the emperor, pay your taxes. According to Jesus, then, we can choose the emperor or we can choose God. We cannot serve them both (Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13). They are mutually exclusive. If we are using the emperor s money, we have already decided whom we will serve. Jesus response is interpreted later, at His assembly before Pilate, as forbidding [citizens] to pay taxes to the emperor (Lk 23:2). PAUL In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus gives us a kind of ultimatum: follow the rule of men or follow the rule of God. Paul, however, in Romans and 1 Corinthians, muddies this distinction. Unlike Christ in the Gospels, he does not see a necessary tension between God and mammon, God and the emperor. In a sense, where Christ tried to divorce state from church, Paul marries them and together, they become one flesh (Mk 10:8). Not only can the empire and God s kingdom coexist, but they must necessarily coexist. Paul certainly recognizes the pagan emperor s inability to confer apostolic authority or the power to heal (this can come only from Christ Himself), but it is less clear, in Paul s mind, whether a state can exist that does not eo ipso have the sanction of God (Acts 13:1-3).
Cicirelli 5 Romans 13 is Paul s most explicit and extended treatment of politics, of a Christian s relationship to secular authorities. There, he says, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God (Rom 13:1). Philosophically, it s important to recognize the category shift that happens within this verse alone. Paul begins the verse speaking of actual governing authorities emperors, prefects etc. and by the middle of the verse, he has shifted and is speaking about the concept of authority; and by the end, he has switched back to actual governing authorities. This shift has led some 3 to defend Paul on the grounds that because governance is ordained of God governments must be as well 4. From this premise in verse 1, Paul goes on in verse 7 to justify taxation. But the question that is begged here is whether governance requires government in the form of emperors, armies, courts, taxes, etc.? Christ is clear in the Gospels that it does not. Paul also seems to suggest, in 1 Corinthians 6, that governance doesn t require governments. He states that when a dispute breaks out among Christians, they are to resolve their grievances outside of court. In fact, he says, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you (1 Cor 6:7). There are other cases in which Paul apparently sides with Christ in His separation of state and church. In 1 Corinthians 15, for example, Paul describes the resurrection of the dead and the millennial return of Christ, when He will hand over the kingdom to God the Father, after he [Christ] has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (24-25). Paul states unequivocally here that secular rulers along 3 See Martin Luther s Commentary on Romans 4 Philosophers call this error the fallacy of division.
Cicirelli 6 with their authority and power are enemies to God. Verses like this, though, are lost in the rhetorical brilliance of Paul s letters, and the image of him that emerges, aided in large measure by Luther s commentaries, is of an apostle who is too quick to or, more likely, too afraid not to defend the state. His emphasis on submitting to secular authorities may also stem from a misunderstanding of Christ s message to the Pharisees regarding taxes. Paul ends up sounding, then, like Peter in 1 Peter 2:17 5. In the end, we might imagine the Christ of the Gospels instructing Paul in another Damascus-like vision, telling him, again, in no uncertain terms, to take some of the passion with which he proclaimed the death of the Mosaic Law and proclaim, also, the death of the empire and its authorities (Rom 7:1-4). 5 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Cicirelli 7 WORKS CITED The Holy Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. McDonough, Scott. Jesus the Rabbi: Matthew. History of Christianity. William Paterson University. Raubinger Hall, Wayne, NJ. 3 June 2015. Lecture. White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. New York: Harper Collins, 2005. Print.