Kingdoms in Conflict
Could Christians who believed in the Kingdom of God be loyal citizens of the Roman
Empire? Many pagans thought 'no.'
L, Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Reli
ious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.
LOYALTY TO CHRIST VS. LOYALTY TO CAESAR
By the second century when Christianity is becoming a
recognizable force in the Roman Empire there are some lingering
political questions still attached to it, We have to remember that it
was known that Jesus was executed as a political criminal and the
gospel traditions themselves preserved this tradition of Pilate
questioning Jesus. "Are you a king? Are you King of the Jews?"
Now whether or not Pilate ever really asked that question of Jesus
directly it does appear to be the case ... that Jesus claimed to be a
king. A kind of Messianic claimant, "King of the Jews" was attached
to his cross. That tradition, that legacy while it was a very important part of Christian
confession and tradition also opened up another door of problems with regard to the
Roman Empire because if somehow Christ was their king, it called into question their
loyalty to the king, that is, the emperor of the Roman state. We have a case of kings
and kingdoms in conflict. The old apocalyptic imagery of coming kingdom of God, of a
coming Messiah from heaven, could be read as a prominent denunciation of the
Roman Empire and of its king, Caesar.
Coin yeh head of Augustus
Did Christian literature contain...predictions that might
The old apocalyptic imagery
have aroused suspicions of civic disloyalty? of coming kingdom of Ged,
of caming Messiah from
The Christian tradition seems to be ambivalent toward the heaven, could be read.as a
Roman state at certain times. We have Se ieman trmieud
this apocalyptic tradition that seems to have an implicit ofits king, Caesar
criticism of the state and indeed some lingering portions of
the apocalyptic tradition within Christianity continued to be very antagonistic toward
the Roman Empire and the imperial state structures. The Book of Revelation, or the
apocalypse as it's known within the New Testament documents, is a very strong
denunciation of the state. Here the emperor and the imperial court are portrayed as a
dragon who goes out to devour the Virgin Mother of a heavenly child. There's no way
of reading this other than an absolute polemic against the beastly nature of the
empire over against the spiritual nature of the Christian church, and in this tradition it
is also clear what God has in mind for the future... In the Book of Revelation the
future plan of God has a very clear and definite ending. Rome will be thrown down
The church will survive in triumph. This is the legacy of apocalypse that we still see in
certain brands of Christianity.
On the other side we find Christians saying just the opposite, that the emperor and
governors and the state as a whole are ordained by God and one should be respectful
of the state and its municipal offices. Certain Christians seem to go way out of their
way to avoid persecution, and not only avoid persecution but avoid being viewed as
disloyal to the state. Paul himself seems to say this in Romans 13 .... By the second
and third century, Christians will still be claiming we're loyal to the state, "We're not
bad citizens. We're not doing anything wrong. Look at what we do. Look at what weteach. Look at how... what we practice. Look are our ethics and you'll see we're just
as good citizen[s] as you.”
So what we see at this time is that the Christians really are [in] kind of an ambivalent
state within the Roman Empire. They haven't really found their place yet, and
occasionally Christians are blamed for catastrophes that obviously were none of their
doing at alll. ...[T]here's a wonderful quote from the Christian writer, Tertullian. He's a
kind of satirical fellow all the way and he says, "Does the Nile River not rise high
enough? Are there plagues and floods and famines? All at once the cry goes up from
all the neighbors. Christians to the lion! Christians to the lion!" and then he turns with
his sharp satirical eye and says, "What, all those Christians to one lion?”
CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS
How did Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr try to reconcile this
conflict or apparent conflict between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to Caesar?
Did he talk about the nature of the kingdom?
The tension felt by Christians over this issue of loyalty to the state -- Is the state a
part of God's plan? Can Christians participate in public affairs and public social life? --
seems to be a growing concern as we move through the second and early part of the
third century. This especially becomes the subject matter for a growing Christian
literary activity. The group of writers that we tend to call the apologists. Now the
apologists are known by that name because they wrote apologies. The Greek word
"apologia" comes from the term for a defense speech in court. We have Plato's
apology of Socrates which is Socrates’ defense before the Athenian council. Before
he's eventually executed.
So when Christians start to write apologies, what they're doing is a kind of legal
defense before the public arena of debate of what it means to be a Christian. Is it
legal? Is it not? Are they good? Are they bad? And so these Christian apologists really
start to talk about Christianity from that perspective. It’s a kind of defense, and
there's always a kind of dilemma knowing how to read some of these documents.
Some of them are actually addressed to the emperor himself, and if not the emperor,
governors and other important officials but it's very unlikely that an emperor would
actually have read one of these Christian documents. So who are they really writing
for in these apologies? The answer is they're probably writing for Christians. These are
written to Christians who are living in the society. In other words, for the very people
who would have been encountering those pagan neighbors just across the street or
just next-door, and the apologetic literature is a way of arming these Christians with
the answers and the arguments that would allow them both to be a part of society and
also to respond to the kinds of claims and charges made against Christians by their
pagan neighbors. So what the apologetic tradition is showing us is Christians
beginning to encounter at a very vibrant intellectual level the arguments and the
social life of their pagan Roman world just nextdoor.
JUSTIN MARTYR
One of the most famous of the Christian apologists of the second century is a fellow
known as Justin Martyr and indeed he eventually would die as a martyr. That's how he
got his name. Justin himself was actually born in Palestine in the city Flavia Neapolis.
Now that's the new Roman name for the old city of Samaria that we hear so much
about in biblical tradition. Justin's family apparently is a pagan family living in that
area. Justin himself seems to have been a very bright young man and so embarked
upon a schooling in the philosophical traditions, and in fact we hear of him moving
from philosophical school to philosophical school as he makes his way from hishomeland in Palestine. First to Greece and then eventually all the way to the city of
Rome, and he dabbles in one philosophical school and then another looking for what
he considers to be the true philosophy of life. In the course of this intellectual journey
Justin himself also encounters Christianity, and becomes a convert to Christianity and
also one of its most important vocal supporters as he develops a philosophical defense
of Christianity. So Justin's apology for Christianity is also a philosophical argument for
the legitimacy of Christianity within the larger purview of Roman intellectual and
religious life...
By the year 150 Justin Martyr is living in Rome and actually has his own philosophical
school in the city of Rome. In fact, the tradition of the events surrounding his death,
what is called “The Martyrdom of Justin and His Friends" actually tells us that Justin
ran the school upstairs in a rooming house where he lived... we actually know now
that Justin was running a kind of Christian catechetical school on the model of a Greek
philosophical school tradition, [teaching] Christian philosophy. Justin is very important
not only because he mounts such an important intellectual defense of the Christian
tradition. He's also important because he actually defines Christianity in philosophical
terms for what we must imagine is a growing intellectual elite within the Christian
tradition in the middle of the second century.
JUSTIN MARTYR DISTINGUISHING CHRISTIANS,
FROM PAGANS
One of the problems faced by this growing intellectual integration of Christianity into
the Roman world is how far do you go before you lose your identity as Christians?
Justin Martyr the apologist is faced with this problem as well. There are so many
similarities between what Christians do and the way some of these other mystery cults
behave, It actually is a difficult problem for him to suggest what's unique about
Christianity. Justin himself has a very interesting answer to this problem. He says in
fact that Christianity is not the new religion in this process, they're the old truth.
They're a part of the oldest form of religious life in the world and the mystery cults as
they tend to be called, are the ones who are the imitators of Christianity. In fact he
even says it's a kind of satanic conspiracy to make them look too much like
Christianity so the poor ignorant pagans will be duped into following false religion
instead of true Christianity. But the key point is there are similarities and the
similarities are notable.
JU)
IN ON JES'
The similarities of Jesus and other figures, though, continues to be an issue for pagans
and Christians alike. Indeed from the perspective of Justin Martyr as an apologist
trying to defend the legitimacy of Christianity, it's very important that he can hold up
a model of other people, other well known, famous people the past in Greek and
Roman tradition who similarly died for their beliefs. Who were models of the righteous
sufferer, the martyr for their beliefs, such as Socrates himself. And so when Justin
talks about Jesus he's really a new philosopher figure. Someone who brings a set of
insightful beliefs and teachings into this world and who is obliged to die as a result of
living by those principles. Jesus is a new Socrates.
Apologists like Justin probably had an important impact on the spread of Christianity if
for no other reason [than] because they gave it a kind of intellectual respectability in
the ... Greek and Roman...intellectual tradition. They make it philosophically
acceptable, and as a result of that I think we must imagine that by the later half of
the second century and certainly into the early third century, Christianity is really
attracting more and more people from the upper ranks of society.