The Politics of the Message, Part 7
October 17th, 2007 by Sean
I just started reading through John D Crossan’s God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now. The first chapter explains what the Roman Imperial thought world was like just before and during the time of Christ. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Caesar Augustus was deified [made into a god] during his life time. I thought the following quotation was fascinating.
God and Empire pg 28
In conclusion, imagine this question. There was a human being in the first century who was called “Divine,” “Son of God,” “God,” and “God from God,” whose titles were “Lord,” “Redeemer,” “Liberator,” and “Savior of the World.” Who was that person? Most people who know the Western tradition would probably answer…Jesus of Nazareth. And most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus. To proclaim them of Jesus the Christ was thereby to deny them of Caesar the Augustus. Christians were not simply using ordinary titles applied to all sorts of people at that time, or even extraordinary titles applied to special people in the East. They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.
This really summarizes what we have been talking about on this topic [the Politics of the Message]. Jesus is in competition with Caesar and all other rulers of this present age. The message of Jesus is inherently political because it centers on the coming political kingdom. Though many believe that Christianity mutated within the first century from the religion of Jesus (i.e. the religion Jesus himself practiced) to become the religion about Jesus (i.e. Jesus died for your sins, just accept him). They say that after the death and resurrection and the failure of the Jews to accept the gospel of the kingdom, things shifted gears and Paul preached a different a gospel–a gospel of grace (i.e. the death, burial, and resurrection). But looking at the New Testament in this way splits it in half and distances the modern Christian from the words of his lord. However, if we recognize the implicit political flavors of the words Paul regularly uses of Jesus especially in his letters to Romans, Thessalonians, and Philippians, then we can recover the continuity between the political proclamation of Jesus (i.e. the kingdom is coming soon) and the political proclamation of Paul (i.e. the lord, son of God, savior, is coming). If we see “lord,” “son of God,” and “savior” as political titles (which they were) then all of a sudden Jesus and Paul can be seen as preaching the same gospel (Paul preached the kingdom in Acts 19.8; 20.24-25; 28.23; 28.31).
Heh, Somehow I think this should be the first one
So much for the introduction to the topic being last.
Sean, what made you want to purchase that book? Just curious. Although my only exposure to him is through the James White debate and what we hear from him through our buddy Bart.
Is he as liberal as he comes across? Are you finding many truths that would make it worth picking up his literature?
Dustin
I think Crossan does very well when it comes to historical research on the Roman Empire. His historical Jesus conclusions are very liberal, and I do anticipate that in this book I will disagree with him a good deal, but on the whole I think he has something of value to contribute to understanding the Bible. If you recall, I referred to him in the Politics of Message, Part 5 and this article he wrote on Paul and Empire. He is just one of the many voices bringing out the implications of the recent discoveries regarding imperial cult and how Paul’s letters regularly use the same terminology in an intentionally subversive way.
Hi Sean,
seems almost like you are saying that Jesus message and that of his apostles was a political gospel …. when the Lord Jesus himself made rather clear by his words and actions that it was not.
One should carefully note that there is a difference between how someone is perhaps using a certain term and how others may be understanding the term. God has always been THE KING (and actually referred to Himself as such in his communication with OT prophets) … but — remember the time when Israel came and wanted “a king” ? — had God been a “king” in the sense that He was the political leader (which Israel described as “a king like the other nations have”)? Was God’s rule a political rule over Israel when He was their king? No! The “political rule” (if one were to call it that) was exercised by judges …. God’s rule (= God’s kingdom) was of a spiritual nature and reached first and foremost to the moral conduct of His people (both individually and collectively) and then including care for their physical well being in terms of provision and protection.
It seems to me that there is a big problem with the thiinking of “the politics of the message” (compare above) …
By the way, this type of thinking and interpretation of certain scirptures is only seen where folks interpret the “kingdom of God” as “a political world wide empire” … if one were consistent, one should then also perhaps portray Jesus to be “a king like the nations have”? The whole point of the comparison between Jesus Christ as the king of kings and his kingdom to the emperor/other kings is that Jesus’ kingdom IS NOT a political earthly / worldly rule.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, I see we are still at odds with each other on the nature of the kingdom in the New Testament. I was hoping that Richard Pratt’s article or Steve Baugh’s lecture would have helped unify us on this matter. I agree with you that the kingdom is the reign of God in a general sense in much of the Old Testament. However, there is a real, physical, political nation called Israel which was ruled by David. The OT repeatedly predicts that one day a descendant of David or a shoot of Jesse (David’s father), or a branch of David, will be brought onto the scene to restore the kingdom to Israel. But not only Israel will benefit, because all nations will end up streaming to Jerusalem for instruction, violence will end (even among the animals), and God will be worshiped by all. This day will come and is spoken of in the NT as the kingdom of God. The more I study it, the more I’m convinced that Jesus’ phrase “kingdom of God” was an adaptation of Daniel 2.44 where “the God of heaven sets up a kingdom.”
There is nothing shamefully or negative about a political kingdom. Your own countrymen were the ones who ignited the scholarly awareness of this subject over a century ago (Johannes Weiss 1892 & Albert Schweitzer 1906). Anyhow, groups had believed in the literal kingdom throughout the 1800s as well due to the advent movement in America. We are NOT suggesting that we should dethrone our present day rulers. We are NOT active apocalypticists, we are passive apocalypticists who are “watching” and “waiting” for the day when the clouds break open, Jesus returns in power, and the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
Even so, neither of our positions affects the facts of the matter cited above in the original post. The fact of the matter is that Caesar Augustus was given many of the titles that Jesus was later given and those titles weren’t at all common place. How we interpret this may differ. I differ with how NT Wright interprets it and others do. But facts are facts. Maybe you think that this is just a coincidence?
I agree that Jesus is not a King like the worldly Kings, and his Kingdom is different than the Kingdoms of the world. But not in an anti-nomian, or non-political way – but rather in motive and accomplishment. The Kingdom of God comes from God and is established in righteousness, whereas the kingdoms of this world are unrighteous and established in wickedness and deceit. That is what Jesus means when he says that his Kingdom is not of this kosmos.
Good morning, JohnO … But that’s not all of it, I don’t believe. The kingdoms of this world have often – perhaps mostly – been established with a view of social welfare and peace, not in wickedness and deceit, per se. Power corrupts, of course, owing to the effect of the flesh nature, but this is mostly at the top. Human governments, in principle, at least, are based on human concepts of what makes for peace and prosperity, i.e., democracy, socialism, communism, etc., free markets, versus a command economy and the like. For the most part they do mean well, even as the leaders may skim off the top and, since the world’s governments are political and not spiritual, there is no recrudescence of the human heart. “The way of peace they know not”, as it says in Scripture.
Messiah’s kingdom will be different. He knows the way of peace and can deal with the human heart. The very natures of creatures will change. It will be imposed on our world from outside the planet, so to speak, i.e., not of this “kosmos.” I can hardly wait!
John 18.36 is better translated as “my kingdom is not from this world [εκ του κοσμου].” That is to say that Jesus’ kingdom is not derived from the worldly power structures, it is not acquired through electioneering, causing a revolution, or through infiltrating a monarchy through marriage alliance or whatever. The power source of Jesus’ kingdom is from heaven, or from God who dwells in heaven. If we think back to the vision of Daniel 2, the rock was cut out “without hands” and it smashed the statue representing the kingdoms of the world.
They said it better than I did
Hello, I am not sure what you mean by competiition with Caesar. Jesus knew his kingdom and rule wasn’t to start during this time. That is why he had no problem with render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and that included the loyalty of the people. As you said above, it is not of this world, so where is the competition?
Gail,
It is competition with Caesar because Caesar claimed to do the same things. He was proclaimed as a Savior. He told the people the he was the one who brought peace and none else. Caesar should be worshiped and revered. Of course Jesus is the true Savior, and brings true peace – much more than anything Caesar could have done. We can only have allegiance to one King and we have to choose. This world, or the next.
It is important to remember that Caesar is not like an American President because Caesar was the leader of the whole world (or the world known to most people). Furthermore, Caesar was not just an elected leader, but a divine man who was commonly called “son of God.” This is why the early Christians were so adamant about refusing to offer incense to Caesar’s statue when threatened with death. They would not utter the words “Caesar is lord” because inherent in that admission was the statement “Jesus is not lord.”
I understand to some degree what you are saying, my point being that Caesar was in competition but I can’t wrap my brain around Jesus being in competition.