Comments on: Christ vs Caesar: Did the Apostles Deliberately Subvert the Roman Empire?

By: Items of Interest: Evil and Good — Civitate

Items of Interest: Evil and Good — Civitate — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:26:56 +0000

[...] Trevin Wax has an interesting post on Kim’s Christ and Caesar, and whether the Apostles intended to subvert the Roman [...]

By: Lucas

Lucas — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:38:27 +0000

there’s some semantic nuance we have to dig through here. as Sam wrote above, the overthrow of the empire is inherent in our citizenship in Heaven. it’s not that early Christianity existed as an anti-empire sect, but moreso that opposition to the empire was the natural fallout of faith. “seek first the kingdom of heaven” right?

so yes, to extrapolate that Christ’s teachings go against all actions of all empires ever is overstepping a bit. but i don’t think it would be unreasonable to say that all empires to date and all empires to come, are or will be worldly-focused in ways (to varying degrees) incompatible with Christian living. for example, it is doubtful that any government will ever agree with us that we must love our enemies.

i’m interested in our reading of Romans 13 – Paul, after all, wrote that from jail, and it would not be the last time he got locked up. so either he was significantly and repeatedly contradicting his own teachings, or there’s some deeper meaning to be read out of that passage. frankly i don’t know.

fundamentally though i do think we need to be aware of our set-apartness. i feel like Jesus-followers try too hard to fit in with the political (and social and economic) status quo; in many parts of the world the status quo and Christian identity are, in fact, identical. faith = patriotism, faith = capitalism, faith = war… anyway i’m digressing (and showing my biases).

By: In the Blogosphere « Kingdom People

In the Blogosphere « Kingdom People — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:55:09 +0000

[...] Top Post this Week: Christ vs. Caesar – Did the Apostles Deliberately Subvert the Roman Empire? [...]

By: aworthydiscussion

aworthydiscussion — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:52:36 +0000

With a lot of things people have taken the political element a little too far at times. Yes the language was subversive, but were they really thinking to overthrow the empire? I think not. Overthrowing the empire sounds a lot like “taking a town for Jesus” talk to me.

By: brian

brian — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:49:17 +0000

No question that the eschatalogical hope of the Jewish people in the time of Christ was another Exodus and regathering. Old Covenant Isreael gives us a type of what is to be fulfilled in the New Covenant in Jesus. The Jewish hope in Christ’s time would be something like… what God did to the Egyptians, he will do to the Romans. In hindsight, St. Ireneaus see this as Christ living out the recapitulation of Israel’s history. Christ’s role would be akin to that of Moses, not as a militant per se, but living in faithful obedience in expectation of fulfillment of God’s promises. (Though indeed Christ stood for justice in the face of Pontius Pilate as did Moses with Pharaoh.) In Christ’s journey, the Exodus occured, as did the regathering, and God’s people became one as his Church, his Body. The Roman empire, and all other earthly empires were, and are, supplanted by the Kingdom of God.

By: Sam Marsh

Sam Marsh — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:29:28 +0000

From what I’ve read and understood of Oakes, Wright, Horsley et al, they are not saying that the gospels primary purpose was counter-imperial, but that they recognised that the message of (particularly) Paul had a strongly subversive element to it… Citizenship of heaven was to stand in decisive contrast to earthly, Roman citizenship. In my view, it isn’t necessary to therefore see Roman citizenship and heavenly citizenship as antithetical, but rather to recognize that the dynamics of negotiating the Roman world whilst resisting its rule was often a complex coexistence of accommodation and resistance. This could take the form of “violence and non-violence, be hidden and open, directly confrontational or more concerned with the distinctive practices and theology of an alternative community.” [Carter (2006)]

I can’t agree more that the gospel transcended anything Paul may have had to say about the Roman Empire – but to lift Paul’s gospel out of the context in which it was preached might just be doing it a disservice… Kim’s argument that the gospel was “politically innocuous” is for me, therefore, a central statement about the nature of what it means to preach the gospel in our (or any other) context…

By: Kim’ s Christ and Caesar challenges view of apostles as political revolutionaries, but leaves some questions unanswered : Sic et Non

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:06:57 +0000

[...] Kim’ s Christ and Caesar challenges view of apostles as political revolutionaries, but leaves some questions unanswered Trevin Wax [...]

By: pastor jim sharp

pastor jim sharp — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:14:21 +0000

sam, to say that the Gospel is subversive is to speak of one of its effects not its purpose.
the Gospel does indeed and always has had a transformative effect … but its purpose transcends — until all the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. salt and light effects are a foretaste of the glory yet to be revealed.

By: Mason

Mason — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:09:55 +0000

Though I do not think the Apostles were advocating some sort of anti-Roman revolt (primarily because I am convinced that the Apostles teach a clear opposition to violence including armed rebellion) that does not mean there was not significant nonviolent opposition to the political manifestations of the powers that be.

I think that Kim has overstepped the evidence here, if the Gospel is so unthreatening and non-subversive to the political powers of the world and only focused on spiritual powers then why were Christians brutally persecuted for hundreds of years exactly as a political threat to the Empire?

By: Sam Marsh

Sam Marsh — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:03:32 +0000

Do you not think, though, that subverting the Roman view of the world and thereby subtely undercutting it’s claims can be an expression of opposition to Empire? ‘Revolt against authority’ can find expression in many nuanced ways…

I’ve been giving some though to this issue recently on my blog.