Jeff Sessions and the Interpretation of Romans 13

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made news when he referenced the Bible to defend the immigration policy of the Trump Administration.  Sessions stated:

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order...Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

First off, I have no desire to debate immigration policy so you can rest easy in knowing that this post will not be political in nature.  Instead I am more interested in addressing Sessions' reference to the Book of Romans (chapter 13 to be specific) and the unique role this particular chapter of the Bible has played over the years.

Paul and Romans in Brief Historical Context

If we want to understand why Romans 13 has been such a controversial piece of Christian scripture we must first understand why Paul wrote it to begin with.  Most scholars agree that Paul authored Romans sometime between the years 55 and 58.  As its title suggests, Paul wrote this epistle to the "Christians" who were living in the city of Rome.  (I hesitate to use the word "Christian" because it is anachronistic to this time period.  It would be better to say "Jesus followers" or something similar.  In the interest of simplicity, however, I will continue to use the word Christian).

So what was happening in Rome that inspired Paul to write to the Roman Christians in the first place?  In the year 49, just a few short years before Paul wrote his letter, Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from the city of Rome, due to what the Roman officials called "instigation of disturbances" among the people.  Shortly thereafter, Claudius was killed by Agrippina, his wife, in the year 54.  Long story short, Nero, the son of Agrippina, rose to power.  At first, Nero's reign was one of peace and prosperity.  Nero allowed the Jews to return to Rome and inaugurated a short era of peace and prosperity that permeated the Roman Capital.

As we all know, this period of prosperity didn't last, and Nero eventually became a degenerate who persecuted Christians to the point of death.  For Paul and his fellow Christians, this was a dark time, and Paul was certainly no fan of Nero. So why would Paul write to the Romans and tell them to submit to Nero's leadership or potentially face the wrath of God?

What we must recognize is that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans BEFORE the persecutions of Nero had begun.  This is significant because when we read the words of chapter 13 we must keep in mind that Paul was writing during the brief period of peace and prosperity at the beginning of Nero's reign.  When we are mindful of this fact, the verses that Jeff Sessions (and many others) quote from scripture have a very different interpretation.

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13: 1-7)

Paul was not writing to a group of persecuted Christians living under the yoke of a dictatorial psychopath.  He was writing to Christians who were being given (albeit temporarily) an opportunity to thrive.  The last thing Paul wanted these new Christians to do was to create waves or even appear to oppose the new regime.  By all accounts it seemed that a new era of tolerance was upon all of Rome, and the Christians stood to benefit from it in a big way.  Why would anyone dare resist it?  Paul, like any leader, would have wanted his people to submit to such a leader.  Why wouldn't this be the will of God?

Romans 13 Over the Years

Jeff Sessions is far from the first person to reference Romans 13 as support for a political agenda.  Over the years Romans 13 has been used to oppose everything from the American Revolution to the Civil Rights movement.  Jeff Sessions referencing this chapter of the Bible is simply par for the course when it comes to politicians wielding scripture like a weapon.  As Historian John Fea put it:

America was built and born on rebellion and a sort of radical resistance to authority.  Whenever Romans 13 was used in the 18th and the 19th century — and Sessions seems to be doing the same thing, so in this sense there is some continuity — it’s a way of manipulating the scriptures to justify your own political agenda.

Romans 13 was used by Loyalist colonists to oppose the cause of American Independence.  Romans 13 was used by slave-holding Confederates as doctrinal justification to own slaves (interestingly enough, these were the same Confederates who ended up breaking with the Union.  Funny how Romans 13 could be used to justify slavery but not to oppose a break with the Union).  Romans 13 was even used in Hitler's Germany by pro-Nazi Christians to inspire support of the German Furor.  Heck, some have argued (convincingly so) that Romans 13 was Adolf Hitler's favorite chapter of the Bible.  Over at my other blog, American Creation, the topic of how Romans 13 has been interpreted by a plethora of different people with different agendas is so long that I quit counting at 36 posts.

Romans 13 is, like so many other parts of scripture, a unique tool that can be used to add credence to almost any agenda.  Paul's words can be twisted to fit just about any issue, from opposing American independence in the 18th century to justifying immigration policy in the 21st century.  The fact that these words come from the Bible is why so many are both pleased and pissed with Sessions today.  Having said that, Sessions' tactic is neither unique nor particularly convincing from a purely historical perspective.  Simply put, Romans 13 has been used to justify/oppose everything under the sun.  To call something the "will of God" by appealing to this particular chapter of the Bible is like trying to kick water uphill.

In conclusion, the Apostle Paul was not attempting in Romans 13 to write out a manifesto for Church-State relations that would stand for the next two or three millennia.  Instead, Paul's concern was pastoral and local. Paul was worried about his little band of Christians in a foreign land.  Paul was advising his followers to be loyal to a regime that was, at the very least, happy to stay our of the way of the Christians. Jeff Sessions is simply wrong when he assumes that this part of the Bible supports his argument on immigration.  It does not.  Like so many before him, who have also used this Bible chapter to support their respective cause, Sessions is simply acting like a politician, not a historian or theologian.  My guess is the Apostle Paul would want Sessions to leave him out of this whole mess because he had bigger fish to fry.

Jewish Zealots of the First Century

In last week's blog post I referenced how the origin of Judas' epithet (Iscariot) has been debated by scholars, and its possible correlation to first-century Jewish Zealotry.  In response, a good friend of mine posed an excellent question on my Facebook wall:

You mention that Judas was an extremist zealot.  I wonder why Jesus would have included such a figure to his party of  Twelve disciples if this were the case.  Could you explain?

My friend expounded upon this question in a follow up message:

 I guess it just seems weird to think of a character like Jesus associating with individuals who could be considered religious extremists.

Excellent question. The main issue at play here isn't that Jesus potentially added religious extremists to his group of twelve disciples.  The issue is that the ancient and modern worlds are dramatically different from one another.  I simply did not explain this fact very well in my post on Judas.  I hope to remedy that mistake today.

From the perspective of the modern world a religious zealot (small "z") is akin to a terrorist bomber, or at the very least somebody who accepts the word of scripture to the studies of science.  For Jews of Late Antiquity, to be a Zealot (large "Z") was something different entirely.  To better explain this important distinction let's take a ride into the past.

Imagine if you will that we have arrived at Twin Pines Mall at 1:00 a.m. to meet the great Dr. Emmett Brown. There we see Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), sitting in the driver's seat of a DeLorean that will catapult us into the past.  Marty inputs the year "30" into the time computer with a destination that reads "Judea."  We sit back as the car rockets to a speed of 88 miles per hour.  The Flux Capacitor works its magic and...PRESTO!  We find ourselves magically teleported to a random Jewish community of the first-century.  One of our companions on this trip is a modern day Evangelical Christian (he just happens to be fluent in Aramaic so we can communicate with the locals) who insists that our first order of business is to track down some fellow Christians, in the hopes that they might be able to direct us to Jesus and his traveling band of twelve disciples.

Suddenly we discover a massive problem.  No, the problem isn't that the DeLorean couldn't have gone 88 MPH to begin with (though that would be an issue).  The real dilemma comes when our Evangelical friend begins asking locals, "Where can I find fellow Christians?"

"Christians?" Reply the locals.  "What is that?"

From behind us we hear Dr. Brown mumble under his voice, "Great Scott! Christianity is anachronistic in the first century."

"Anachronistic?"  Replies our Evangelical friend.  "I don't understand.  Tell me more?"

I'm glad you asked.

The word "anachronism" means something or someone that is outside of its correct historical or chronological timeline.  For instance, the following picture would be considered anachronistic for obvious reasons:

Abe Lincoln holding an iPhone is akin to Jews of the first century knowing what a "Christian" was.  It's a foreign concept for that particular time.  This is significant when we discuss the Zealot movement of the first century because we must seek to understand historical people and events on THEIR terms, without injecting modern concepts into the past.  So when we read of ancient zealots/zeal, we must seek to understand how they (of the past) defined that term.  To inject a modern definition of religious zealotry/zeal onto the past would be as anachronistic as Lincoln with an iPhone.  Perhaps it isn't as obvious but the anachronism is the same.  This must be our starting point, long before the DeLorean has arrived in ancient Judea.

Two things stand out to us as we continue our quest to find "Christians" in ancient Judea.  First is the ever-present reminder that Rome, the empire of all ancient empires, is very much in charge.  Second is the fact that local Jews, though accepting of their Roman occupation, are anything but pleased with the current state of affairs.  And though the Jews were anything but thrilled with their Roman overlords, living under the rule of Caesar wasn't all bad.  For example, Roman society admired and even approved of the Jewish faith.  Jews received a special exemption from having to pay homage to Caesar on account of their very old (even by this time) religious traditions.  This is another surprising difference from our world today.  In the modern world we typically give greater credibility to the newest innovation or technology, whereas the exact opposite was true of the ancient world.  This played into the hands of the Jews because the ancient nature of their faith made it more credible to their Roman overseers.  As a result, they were given more freedom of religion than many of their neighbors.

But not everything was well in Zion.  As we make our way though the various small towns/communities of Judea we quickly take note of the many subgroups of devout Jews, each providing its own interpretation on how the One True God expects His commandments to be interpreted and followed.  Groups like the Essenes (fathers of the Dead Sea Scrolls), Pharisees and yes, our Zealot friends, are seen passionately advocating for their respective interpretation of the law. Each of these groups is well versed in the Torah, spending virtually every day since childhood in remembrance of their all-important Jewish heritage.  Despite this shared emphasis on Jewish heritage, each group is at odds with one another in many respects.  Essenes are furious with the Jewish aristocracy and eventually separate themselves from society, while the Zealots are quick to remind everyone that Jewish freedom is a matter of both spiritual purity and absolute fidelity to the Law.  Historian N.T. Wright expounds upon this point when he writes:

The tradition of "zeal" is part of the freedom story...There were brief flashes of glorious history: David beating the Philistines, Solomon teaching wisdom to the whole world.  That's how it was supposed to be.  But clinging to this story meant struggling to retain hope in the face of experience.  Long ages of disappointment and disaster seemed to be the norm: ten tribes lost, and the remaining two dragged off into captivity, weeping by the waters of Babylon.  

Why did this happen?  The prophets made it clear.  It was because Israel sinned.  That was the deal God established in the first place: "Now that I've rescued you, stay loyal to me and you'll live in the land.  Turn away from me, worship other gods, and I'll kick you out" (Pp. 30).

In other words, absolute obedience and fidelity were the only surefire way to safeguard Israel's continued prosperity and protection.  For the Jewish Zealot, ensuring that fellow Jews understood this mantra and fell in line was akin to David slaying Goliath.  Complacency had no place among God's chosen people.  The scriptures were full of examples of the kind of "zeal" that was to be emulated by all Jews who sincerely sought to defend God's one true path.  Whether it be the tale of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, who slew with a javelin a man caught a-whoring with a Moabite woman in a tent (Numbers 25: 1-9), or the Prophet Elijah, who successfully lured the worshipers of Baal into a showdown with Israel's God (1 Kings: 18 and 19), the message was the same: those who stand to defend the One True God, with zeal, can be counted with the ranks of Israel's greatest heroes.

But our Evangelical friend doesn't care about "Zealots."  As he quickly reminds us, we aren't on this voyage to hang out with Jews.  We are here to track down the followers of Jesus.  Surely they would have nothing to do with these Jewish radicals!

This is where the story gets messy.  What our Evangelical friend fails to recognize is that the earliest followers of Jesus saw themselves NOT as Christians (as explained above, this is anachronistic to the time), but rather as devout Jews who saw in Jesus fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah.  Jewish Zealots were not exempt from this belief.  They too longed for the coming of the Messiah who would save God's people from the bondage that seemed to surround them.  Men like Simon (the Zealot) and (as mentioned in my post from last week) Judas, found in Jesus the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesy.

The best example of Jewish Zealotry is found in Saul of Tarsus.  The man who would eventually become one of the most zealous defenders of the risen Christ was originally a Zealot who saw in the earliest followers of Jesus the same perversion that Phinheas had seen in his day.  This helps us to understand why Saul was more than happy to persecute (in his mind it was no persecution but righteous zeal) men like St Stephen, who was stoned to death for his "blasphemy."  After his conversion experience, Saul (Paul) reminds us that he was a successful Jew precisely because he was "more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers" than others (Galatians 1: 14)  Paul's devotion to Zealotry was the motivation for both his hatred of, and later conversion to, the Jesus movement.  The same can be said of Judas but in reverse.     

In conclusion, Zealotry was not some word meant to simply emphasize a person's devotion to Jesus or Judaism.  It was a movement that invoked a religious, political and social passion for change.  Those Zealots who found in Jesus the fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic prophecy used that passion to vehemently defend the cause of Christ (Paul) or oppose it (Judas), even to the death.  Thanks to Dr. Brown and Marty McFly, our journey back in time has helped us to better understand the truth.

Now if we could only get a hold of that sports almanac and make some money!

Next blog post: Was Jesus a Zealot?

Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?

It has been over a year since I last wrote on this silly little blog.  To be honest, I simply grew bored with it.  In recent weeks, however, I have felt a desire to rekindle the hobby.  Only time will tell if this new flame lasts or burns out as quickly as it sparked. 

For those who know me, you know that I have a deep love of history.  Ever since my childhood I have maintained an interest in the past.  My dad, who was himself a history buff, was the first person to inspire my interest in the study of history.  Since then I have made the study of history an important part of my life (it even became my chosen area of study in college).

And though there are a myriad of fascinating eras/events/people worthy of study, two particular historical periods have served to capture my interest more than any other: early colonial American history and first-century Christianity.  Today I hope to discuss an important event from the latter.

All of us who attended Sunday School are familiar with the story of Judas Iscariot, the apostle of Jesus who eventually betrayed him to Jewish officials.  In a nutshell (depending on which Gospel account you read), Judas betrayed Jesus because he was inspired of the devil (John 6:70-71) and/or because he caved to the monetary temptation that was thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16).  Interestingly enough, Jewish law mandated that thirty pieces of silver be the compensation for a slave's life (see Exodus 21:32).  In addition to these Bible accounts, we can and should consider what the Gospel of Judas (a late 2nd-century Gnostic account discovered in the 1970s) has to say on the matter.

Keeping these accounts in mind, can we reasonably reconstruct a motive for Judas' infamous betrayal of Jesus?  Are there other motivating factors we need to consider?  Is it even possible for us to reconstruct (from conflicting accounts) Judas' ultimate motivations?  I believe the answer is: yes...kinda...sorta...possibly.

I recently posed this question to Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost professors of New Testament studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Dr. Ehrman is a rock star in the world of New Testament studies and his work has proven invaluable to our understanding of this important and complicated era of the past.  In a nutshell, Dr. Ehrman believes that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was ultimately motivated by a belief that Jesus had crossed a line and had taken things too far, particularly while preparing for the Passover in Jerusalem.  Dr. Ehrman writes:

Throughout Mark’s account Jesus has been preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, speaking about the coming of the Son of Man in judgment, indicating to his disciples that it would happen soon. Then he comes to Judea from Galilee, cleanses the Temple, and is anointed by an unknown woman in the town of Bethany. Apocalyptic fervor among his disciples must have been at its peak. Jesus has just given his lengthiest apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, describing what will happen soon, at the end of the age. When he is anointed in Bethany, what does it mean? The act, of course, could be interpreted in a number of ways. If Jesus is about to become king, could it not be a symbolic statement that he is about to assume the throne as the Lord’s “anointed”? Possibly that’s what the disciples think. But Jesus does not interpret it this way. Instead he indicates that this unnamed woman has anointed his body “for its burial” (Mark 14:8). 

Every time Jesus speaks about his coming death in Mark, the disciples misunderstand him: isn’t he to be the future king who will rule, and aren’t we to rule with him? So too here. As soon as Jesus speaks of his impending death, Judas goes out to betray him.

Is it possible that we have a historical recollection of the real situation here? For Judas, Jesus’ interpretation of his anointing may have been the last straw.

I should point out that though Dr. Ehrman suggests this as a likely possibility, he maintains that the historical record is simply too inconclusive for us to know for certain why Judas would betray Jesus.

In addition to Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis, other valuable suggestions have been given over the years.  A few of them include:

-That Judas, though selected as one of the Twelve, never actually recognized Jesus as the Son of God but instead only recognized Jesus as a great teacher or rabbi (Matthew 26:25).

-That Judas had an unquenchable lust for money that could not be cured (John 12: 4-6 and Matthew 26: 14-16).  Some have suggested that since Judas was essentially in charge of the finances for all the apostles (John 13:29) that he had always maintained a love of worldly wealth.

-That Judas was actually COMMANDED by Jesus to betray him.  As I mentioned above, the newly discovered Gospel of Judas makes this very claim.  The record tells us that Jesus knew his time had come and he needed Judas to set his plan into motion.  This meant betraying Jesus to the High Priests.

 And though I appreciate many aspects to these (and other) theories regarding Judas' betrayal, I ultimately believe they fall somewhat short, primarily because they are too simplistic.  In my opinion, Judas' betrayal of Jesus is a little more complicated that we would like to admit.  It may be easier (and more pleasing) to simply say "Judas did it for the money" or "Judas was inspired of the devil" but such explanations lack in giving Judas credit where credit is due.

It probably sounds weird for me to say that Judas "deserves credit" so let me explain.  I am NOT suggesting that Judas deserves praise for having betrayed Jesus, nor am I suggesting that Judas was a good guy.  Far from it.  What I AM suggesting, however, is that Judas is too often portrayed as a devilish punk who was too stupid to see the error of his ways, while the other apostles were pure as the driven snow.  This narrative (which has essentially permeated New Testament historiography for centuries) is simply infantile and fails to recognize just how important and intelligent Judas ultimately was.

Like so many villains before and after him, Judas' legacy has been subjected to ad hominem attacks that serve to pacify the believing Christian's emotional need for a "bad guy" but ultimately do little in terms of reconstructing the actual man.  It may FEEL better for us to think of Judas as a Hitleresque scoundrel who lurked in the shadows (interestingly, most artistic depictions of Judas portray him as a dark and loathsome figure) but feelings don't depict historical reality.

Judas' epithet (Iscariot) has been debated by scholars for generations.  Some believe the name is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew phrase, meaning "Man of Kerioth."  Other scholars maintain that "Iscariot" is a Latin corruption of the Aramaic word which means "dagger man."  This could prove significant because the phrase "dagger man" could suggest that Judas was a member of the Sicarii, a branch of Jewish Zealots who used aggression and violence to oppose Roman occupation.

In order to understand Judas better we need to better understand what Jewish Zealotry (capital Z) was, and why it likely influenced Judas' view of the world.  The term "Zealot" refers to a political/religious movement in Judea that sought the overthrow of Roman domination.  Jewish Zealots were an extremist branch of Judaism, distinct from rival Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, who had taken their training in the Torah to the extreme.  As New Testament historian N.T. Wright has pointed out, these Zealots relied on the stories of "righteous vengeance" like that of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who smashed the golden idols of the wicked to protect God's true temple rituals (Numbers 16:35-40), or the tale of Judas Maccabeus, who led the triumphant march against Seleucid intruders (the story of Hanukkah), to inspire them to a zealous defense of the One True God of Israel.  These Zealots saw it as their divine commission to defend even to the death the commandments of God in a way that we today might call terrorism (but they would call the CORRECT devotion to God).

In essence, the Sicarri were a subgroup of Zealots who took this doctrine even further.  In other words, they were the extremists of the extremists.  As such they were uncompromising in their devotion to the Torah and in their allegiance to the ONE TRUE GOD of ISRAEL!!!

If we see Judas in this light, we can better understand why we would be mad enough at Jesus to betray him.  Jews like Judas had long been awaiting their heroic Messiah, who would deliver Israel from bondage.  This Messiah was seen as a political (and possibly military?) figure who was endowed by God to lead God's people to their long-awaited victory.  Initially Judas found that figure in Jesus.  When he heard Jesus' declaration that he and his Twelve would rule over the Kingdom of God Judas took it as gospel...

...until he realized he had made a mistake.

It wasn't until his arrival in Jerusalem that Judas finally saw Jesus for who he was.  Instead of being the promised Messiah of political and military might, Jesus became (in the mind of Judas) an impostor.  It was (for Judas) a betrayal of the largest sort.  Jesus was just a man, like so many other fraudulent messiahs before him.  For Judas, who had devoted so many years of his life to this cause, his sense of loss must have been immeasurable.

This sense of loss could only be matched by Judas' need for "righteous vindication" (again, think of his training and experience as a Zealous Sicarri).  The only natural course of action was to turn Jesus over to the authorities as the common criminal he was (receiving the payment for the life of a common slave: 30 pieces of silver).  It was the final act of betrayal, but for Judas the betrayal had not been of his doing.  It was Jesus who had betrayed all of Judea.  It was Jesus who had concocted the devious scheme.  It was Jesus who was the Hitleresque villain.  In Judas' mind, his act of turning Jesus over to authorities was the "patriotic" thing to do.

Perhaps this also helps us better understand Judas; death.  Did Judas commit suicide (assuming we accept Matthew's take on Judas' death) because of felt remorse for betraying Jesus?  Or was it because he felt he had been betrayed those many years into believing in a false messiah?  Was Judas racked with guilt for having condemned God's "only begotten Son?" Or was he mad at himself for having so easily fallen victim to the clever tactics of yet another con artist?

Perspective is ultimately the determining factor in all of this.  For the believing Christian it is simply easier to accept Judas as the scheming, plotting, evil man he was, and since Christianity has come to dominate modern Western culture this is the narrative that most appeals to our senses.  If, however, one is able to take a step outside of his/her world view and try to understand Judas as HE saw the world, then another potential narrative exists.  Which perspective is correct?  You be the judge.