Part 9 of a Political Narrative of the New Testament
In the previous post we examined the main political principles and ideas in Paul’s two letters to Corinthian citizen assemblies. We saw Paul discuss transformation of the Greek courts, various standards for society, the protocol for citizen assembly meetings, among other things.
In Acts 20 Paul went to Corinth in person for several months in c55 or 56AD. (The pic above is a stone marker found in ancient Corinth.) While there he wrote a letter to the Romans, the first time he writes to a group that he had not yet visited. Unlike his other letters so far, he does not directly address it to the citizen assembly, but begins in a more didactic mode. However he becomes more personal and addresses citizen assemblies at the end of the letter.
[Note: This series of posts does not assert that politics is primary in the New Testament, however, there are often overlooked principles and ideas that are worthy of attention. For context we paraphrase certain Bible terms by how it was understood at the time. We ask ourselves: ‘What did this word or phrase mean to those first-century hearers or readers? Then we paraphrase the scripture to reflect that understanding. A simple example is the word ekklesia which today is translated church and means a religious meeting to most people, but in New Testament times it was understood by everyone to be a citizen assembly focused on solving community problems. Modern readers of Scripture focus only on the religious activities and teachings in Acts and the Epistles. But Christians were active in politics from the beginning. Failure to understand this and to believe Christianity only belongs in the religious sphere leads some people today to wrongly judge Christian social activism as seeking improper religious imposition of beliefs using state coercion, i.e. ‘Christian Nationalism’ or Theocracy or Dominionism. Christian activism historically is mostly in the context of democratic pluralism.]
In Romans Chapters one and two Paul refers to Old Testament “Social strategists” (and a few other times in Romans)…and here quotes Habakkuk 2:4 about the “Just” and cites Jeremiah (terms such as Just or Justified, etc or found ten times in Rom 1-5). He affirms the penalty of death for murder, and the truth that no one “will escape the policy decisions of God…in the day of wrath…” [We paraphrase to judge as to govern and judgement as a policy decision of one who governs. These words are found 18 times in Romans. It is civil rather than religious judgement.]
Law and Judgement: God’s Standards for All Nations
He affirms that only the “doers” of the law will be justified and explains the Law of Nature saying: “when Gentiles,…do the things in the law, these, ….show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.” He even asks: “….will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, govern you who, even with your written code and circumcision…?” [Law or lawlessness are words found countless times in Romans.]
Ch 3,4,5 says the Jews were given a “written code” that identified “the transcendent political priorities of God.” He asks: “….Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God govern the world? ….Their condemnation is just…” Paul explains that for Gentiles: “….the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Social strategists…” He affirms that God is “just and the justifier.” And He is “…also the God of the Gentiles…who will justify [both Jew and Gentile] ….Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.” Paul then affirms that “Abraham…became the father of many nations…[Gen 15].”
God can rule nations without them knowing Moses’ law, and affirms that we are “not under [that] law” in terms of being in right standing with God, but yet in Ch 7 he explains that “…I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’. [therefore the Mosaic] law…and the transcendent political priorities [are] holy…just… good…[and] spiritual…”
Rom 8 speaks of “glorious liberty” for “God’s elect (the ones He already voted for)” whom God “justifies.” In Ch 9 he affirms that “my countrymen [have]… the constitutions, the giving of the law” but clarifies that God’s standard for Gentiles is up to the “pre-chosen Ruler …[who] is over all…. according to election (i.e. God’s vote).” He explains that earthly rulers such as Pharoah are controlled by God for His purposes. And He is “the Lord of armies.”
The “pre-chosen Ruler is the end of the law” as the standard for Gentiles, but still the Jewish people “shall live by them [Lev 18].” An example is given by Paul in Rom 11 when Elijah thought he was alone after the government had killed many “Social strategists…” But [God said:] “…[7000] have not bowed….’ there is a remnant [by]… the election of grace….” The key again is God’s vote which is not based on human effort but God’s unearned favor. This is God’s new constitution (Isa 59) with its election and senior statesmen.
Transformation and Overcoming Evil with Good Government
Paul turns more practical in his letter at this point to help Gentiles to be successful in God’s purposes. He says in Ch 12 that we are to “be transformed” so that we can “prove what is that good…will of God.” Once we know and can demonstrate good in practical ways such as governance, then we can overcome evil. This will be explained later. But to be effective we should “use…Strategic social insights” and “let us see Strategic social insights.” This is what “to prophesy” means. In other words, we need a Biblical worldview operating in all we do.
Then he explains that God uses governing authorities to bring justice: “….do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for… ‘I will repay.” This quote from Dt 32 is specifically saying that God’s wrath comes on evildoers through those in civil authority. Not taking personal vengeance does not mean to be passivists regarding evil. He says: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Paul then proceeds to illustrate how to do this. It is not by just acts of kindness or other good works we might imagine. The “good” that overcomes evil comes through the civil authorities which He has ordained. As he now explains: “Be subject to the governing authorities… [they are] appointed by God…whoever resists…the law of God,…will bring policy decisions on themselves.” Note that this is true for both citizens and their governors. The highest authority here is not the human authority but God’s law.
“For rulers are…a terror to…to evil …[and] bear the sword [as] …an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil….” That is what good government does. And it is worth noting that only the state is given the power of force. It may delegate it to its citizens but unauthorized use of force is unbiblical anarchy. There is one kind of “terrorist” that God blesses – the righteous ruler who punishes criminals. But he also is a “God’s minister to you for good.” This term minister means servant, which is what Jesus had taught in Luke 22:26 that Christians should do. He said that we who wish to “govern” should be servants. This whole idea eventually changed the world. Now many nations call their government officers “ministers” such as minister of justice or minister of education. This title never existed in the pagan model of governance.
Submission to the State Only if it is Governing As God Intended
Paul says further: “Because of this [i.e. this primary purpose of civil government, i.e. to overcome evil] you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers [for]…this very thing [i.e. for punishing crime]. Peter says something similar in 1 Pet 2. So with this purpose of government being clear Paul commands: “Render therefore to all their due [as Jesus said in Lk 20:22-25]: taxes to whom taxes are due…” Submission and support is required when rulers punish evil and do good, but when government corrupts that order and punishes good people and protects criminals, then they are the ones in rebellion to God’s higher law and should be punished by the resistance of the citizens. Unlimited submission is not Biblical.
In Ch 13 the right use of power is defined more explicitly by the last five transcendent political priorities that are listed next: “You shall not commit adultery,…murder,… steal, … bear false witness,…covet.” Note that only the last five of the Ten Commandments are listed. For Paul to promote the commandments regarding God, images, name, sabbath, etc, would have been more difficult to apply in the context of Gentile Roman governance. [In fact, the New Testament never focuses explicitly on the applicability of commandments 1-5. See my previous posts on the commandments here.] Paul then adds the interpretive rule for: “…any other transcendent political priorities, [they] are all summed up in this saying,… ‘love your neighbor…[Lev 19]’. Love does no harm… therefore love is…fullfillment of the law…”
Paul in Ch 14 sums it up why Jesus: “…died and rose…again, that He might be Sovereign…. ‘Every knee shall bow [to Him. Is 45]’….[as] Isaiah says: ‘…[He] shall rise to reign…In Him the Gentiles shall hope [Is 11]’” Paul also explains that the “government of God is… righteousness…peace…joy.”
Citizen Assemblies and Erastus’ shift from church work to the State
At the end of Ch 15,16 Paul identifies some elected leaders and emissaries of the multiple citizen assemblies that are mentioned: “…Phoebe…is a servant of the citizen assembly in Cenchrea …Junia …[is] among the emissaries [i.e. apostles]…Rufus, elected in the Sovereign…citizen assemblies of the pre-chosen Ruler greet you.” The “whole citizen assembly, greets you.” What is notable here is that Phoebe and Junia are women. Even though Paul said to the Corinthians that women should not speak publicly in the Greek ekklesia citizen assemblies (he is not addressing religious meetings like we think of church today) due to their laws and customs, still it is apparent that women were leaders in other ways as citizens.
Then he also gives an update on his former assistant Erastus, saying he now had become “the treasurer of the city” of Corinth. The term “city manager” is probably the best description. This was not a church role, but a civic one. In previous posts we pointed out that Erastus joined Paul’s apostolic team (Acts 19:22) during Paul’s two-year program in Ephesus focused on what likely was a school of government. Then in the previous post we noted how in the letter to the Corinthians Paul exhorted them to get better judges in their local courts (1 Cor 6). This was only possible by winning the votes of citizens in a democratic Greek election. So apparently Erastus became an example of Paul’s teaching and it seems to show the involvement of believers in politics in the only New Testament country where they had the freedom to vote. He was an example of a New Testament preacher/apostle serving in civil government. (Evidence of his government role is in a marker from the first century in ancient Corinth. See pic at beginning of the post. It says in Latin: “Erastus in return for his aedileship paved it at his own expense.”)
Paul also closes the Romans letter with a reference to the “prophetic Scriptures” which seems to imply especially those passages that provide strategic social insights, i.e. a Biblical worldview for all of life.
[For those interested more in the government position of the Aedile that Erastus held, more is below for paid subsribers. The best book for learning more of how Christians were active citizens in the first century is Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens, by Bruce W. Winter. That book gives evidence and asserts that “…the identification of the Erastus in the inscription with the Erastus in Romans 16:23 can be made with confidence.”]
The content below was originally paywalled.
This edited information below comes in part from Wikipedia. But again it is highly recommended to study the book: Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens, by Bruce W. Winter.
Aedile was an elected office of the Roman Republic. Based in Rome, the aediles were responsible for maintenance of public buildings (aedēs) and regulation of public festivals. They also had powers to enforce public order and duties to ensure the city of Rome was well supplied and its civil infrastructure well maintained, akin to modern local government.
There were two pairs of aediles: the first were the “plebeian aediles” and possession of this office was limited to plebeians; the other two were “curule aediles”, open to both plebeians and patricians, in alternating years. An aedilis curulis was classified as a magister curulus.
The office of the aedilis was generally held by young men intending to follow the cursus honorum to high political office, traditionally after their quaestorship but before their praetorship. ….It was an advantageous position to hold because it demonstrated the aspiring politician’s commitment to public service, as well as giving him the opportunity to hold public festivals and games, an excellent way to increase his name recognition and popularity.
History of the office
….Around 446 BC, the plebian aediles were given the authority to care for the decrees of the Senate. ….in 367 BC, …two curule aediles were appointed—at first from the patricians alone, then from patricians and plebeians in turn, lastly, from either—at the Tribal Assembly under the presidency of the consul. Curule aediles, as formal magistrates, held certain honors that plebeian aediles (who were not technically magistrates), did not hold.
Besides having the right to sit on a curule seat (sella curulis) and to wear a toga praetexta, the curule aediles also held the power to issue edicts (jus edicendi). These edicts often pertained to matters such as the regulation of the public markets, or what we might call “economic regulation”. …Although the curule aediles always ranked higher than the plebeian, their functions gradually approximated and became practically identical. Within five days after the beginning of their terms, the four aediles (two plebeian, two curule) were required to determine, by lot or by agreement among themselves, what parts of the city each should hold jurisdiction over.
….(often with public festivals) the aediles would spend lavishly….to secure voters’ support in future elections. Because aediles were not reimbursed for public expenditures, most individuals seeking the office were independently wealthy. Since this office was a stepping stone to higher office and the Senate, it helped to ensure that only wealthy individuals (mostly landowners) would win election to high office.
Plebeian aediles and Curule aediles were elected by the Tribal Assembly. Since the plebeian aediles were elected by the plebeians rather than by all of the people of Rome (plebeians as well as patricians), they were not technically magistrates. Before the passage of the Lex Villia Annalis, individuals could run for the aedileship by the time they turned twenty-seven. After the passage of this law in 180 BC, a higher age was set, probably thirty-six. By the 1st century BC, aediles were elected in July, and took office on the first day in January.
Powers of the office
Cicero divides these functions under three heads:
(1) Care of the city: the repair and preservation of temples, sewers and aqueducts; street cleansing and paving; regulations regarding traffic, dangerous animals and dilapidated buildings; precautions against fire; superintendence of baths and taverns; enforcement of sumptuary laws; punishment of gamblers and usurers; the care of public morals generally, including the prevention of foreign superstitions and the registration of meretrices. They also punished those who had too large a share of the ager publicus, or kept too many cattle on the state pastures.
(2) Care of provisions: investigation of the quality of the articles supplied and the correctness of weights and measures; the purchase of grain for disposal at a low price in case of necessity.
(3) Care of the games: superintendence and organization of the public games, as well as of those given by themselves and private individuals (e.g., at funerals) at their own expense. Ambitious persons often spent enormous sums in this manner to win the popular favor with a view to official advancement.
….Under Augustus the office lost much of its importance, its judicial functions and the care of the games being transferred to the praetor, while its city responsibilities were limited by the appointment of an urban prefect. Augustus took for himself its powers over various religious duties. By stripping it of its powers over temples, he effectively destroyed the office, by taking from it its original function. ….However, the office did retain some powers over licentiousness and disorder….
Under the Empire, Roman colonies and cities often had officials with powers similar to those of the republican aediles, although their powers widely varied. It seems as though they were usually chosen annually.