barclay, wright, and paul's anti-imperialism

Several bibliobloggers (e.g. here and here) have noted the recent SBL session on “Paul and Empire,” in which John Barclay and Tom Wright went toe-to-toe on the matter of Paul’s anti-imperialism. An MP3 recording of the session has been made available by Andy Rowell here. Barclay’s presentation essentially denies that Paul had any specific issue with Caesar and the Roman Empire, and that Pauline words and statements which Wright and others have taken as implicit, subversive references to Roman imperialism are better understood otherwise. As Barclay memorably puts it in reference to the well-known story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” while Wright and others see a naked Emperor throughout the New Testament, Barclay sees no Emperor at all.

I’m not entirely convinced by Barclay, although I’ve never been entirely comfortable with Wright either. I’ve blogged some thoughts related to this theme before, especially in my description of the gospel and in my introduction to 1 Thessalonians. I know the imperial material related to Thessalonica and 1 Thessalonians the best, so let me focus in on that:

• There is abundant extra-biblical evidence that imperial concerns were highly significant in Thessalonica specifically and Macedonia and the Aegean region in general. Most students of the New Testament are aware of the “Priene inscription,” a stone inscription from Asia Minor from around the time of Jesus’ birth which describes the birth of the Emperor Augustus as “good news” of peace for the world. However, not as many are aware that this inscription has now been discovered in several places throughout Asia Minor. This bit of imperial propaganda was not simply a local matter, but a large-scale regional campaign intended to influence people’s thinking for a while to come. There is also growing evidence for the significance and influence of the imperial cult in the mid-first century throughout the Aegean region. This was not simply a late first or early second century innovation, but a growing trend throughout the first century. Another general regional factor was the reality of Macedonian royalist sentiments based on distinctive Macedonian history. While in general terms there was a pro-Roman outlook in the region, the glories of past Macedonian rulers like Philip and Alexander never faded from the collective consciousness. Indeed, evidence from the region suggests that the Romans sought to counter-act this sentiment in the region by requiring citizens to perform and adhere to imperial loyalty oaths, confessing no king but Caesar. For some good discussions of this evidence, see e.g. Harrison 2002; Green 2002; Oakes 2005.
• There is non-Pauline evidence that Paul’s missionary efforts in Thessalonica were viewed by others as anti-imperialist in nature (Acts 17:1-9). The specific charge brought against Paul and Silas before the civic authorities is telling: “They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus” (Acts 17:7). In light of the evidence described in the previous point, this is best understood as a charge that Paul and Silas are themselves speaking and acting contrary to the required imperial loyalty oaths, and inciting others to do the same.
• Paul’s Macedonian letters themselves use a cluster of imperially characteristic language and motifs to describe what God has done and will do in Jesus, occasionally drawing an explicit contrast with other messages in the Macedonian context. Some of these terms and motifs in 1 Thessalonians include the following: “gospel (e.g. 1:5 cf. 2:13, euangelion),” “Lord (e.g. 4:15-17, kurios),” “arrival/coming” (4:15, parousia), “meeting” (4:17, apantēsis), and the phrase “peace and security” (5:3, eirēnē kai asphaleia; cf. Latin pax et securitas). All these words and phrases are found in various ways in the imperial propaganda of the day. While none of these words is itself unique to imperial rhetoric, taken together they are certainly characteristic of imperial rhetoric. Furthermore, in some of these instances Paul explicitly contrasts his message with other messages in the Thessalonian context: for example, the missionaries’ “word of the gospel” is not a merely “human word” but is “God’s word” (2:13); and it is those who are saying “peace and security” (5:3) who will be destroyed on the day of the Lord. While my own study has focused on 1 Thessalonians, similar stereotypically Roman language can be seen in 2 Thessalonians (e.g. 1:5-10) and in Philippians (e.g. 1:27; 3:20), a letter to a Roman colony.

If we had only one of these lines of evidence, or perhaps even two, then one could be justified in questioning Paul’s “anti-imperialism.” But this kind of convergence of evidence should be enough to convince scholars that Paul did indeed speak in ways which used imperial language in some sense to subvert imperial values. The extra-biblical evidence is of a kind and degree that makes it unlikely Paul was ignorant of imperialist propaganda in the Aegean regions and the significance of using that language otherwise; the evidence from 1 Thessalonians (and even 2 Thessalonians and Philippians) thus seems to reflect Paul’s deliberate mirroring of that imperial propaganda in letters to predominantly non-Jewish recipients from that region, at times apparently in direct contrast to those imperial messages; and the evidence from Acts indicates that some years later Paul was still remembered as speaking in the region in a way that opened him up to the charge of anti-imperialism. In light of all this, it seems to me that Barclay has swung the pendulum too far in his own “anti-Wrightian” rhetoric.

Nevertheless, Barclay’s assessment is not without merit. Paul was certainly not anti-government, nor do I believe he was even anti-Caesar or anti-Empire per se. Rather, it makes sense to understand Paul as setting these among the “rulers of this present age,” and thus in opposition to God and his saving work in Christ in more general terms. (By the way, this sort of understanding comports with my own contemporary application of these motifs related to the gospel.) An analogy with Paul’s view of the Law may be helpful: just as for Paul the Law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet justification cannot come through the Law, so also for Paul the political authorities of this age are “servants of God to do what is right,” yet salvation cannot come through Caesar. Paul's most fundamental problem with both the Law and the Empire is nothing necessarily inherent to themselves—rather it’s that neither is Christ.

Thus, it seems to me that Barclay has overstated his case by undervaluing the evidence, while Wright has overstated his case by overvaluing the significance of the evidence.

Update (12/05/07): David Miller has noted this discussion on his blog, also noting my blog post in the process. I commented on David's post, and I thought my comments there could be helpfully repeated here to clarify the points I make in my post above:

1) Paul uses these specific words [e.g. "Lord" and "gospel"] to people living in a location surrounded by imperial propaganda and some anti-imperial sentiment; 2) he was specifically remembered as speaking in that region in such a way that he could be charged with treasonous anti-imperialism; 3) in at least one instance Paul uses one of these imperial phrases explicitly as a quotation of what other people in the Thessalonian context are saying ("peace and security"), i.e. it is not simply Paul using the language analogously about Christ but as a quotation of those who are in fact opponents of the Thessalonian Christians facing judgment in the Day of the Lord. Thus it is not simply the use of those words and phrases that makes me see some sort of "anti-imperialism" in 1 Thessalonians - it is those words used in these ways in that context. This is not simply like using the language of "King Jesus" as a helpful metaphor for people living under a monarchy; it is more like using that language for those people in a region with a history of anti-monarchist tendencies, saturated with pro-monarchist propaganda, and then describing those who employ that propaganda as liable to divine destruction at the eschaton.

Still, having re-emphasized my points, I should also re-emphasize my conclusion - I do not think that Paul was therefore necessarily anti-Caesar or anti-Empire per se, but rather viewed those as the specific instances of "the powers of the world" in the Thessalonian context, and it's the "powers of the world" (among other forces) that face judgment and defeat in the wake of the crucified and risen Jesus.