Joel White, «Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul: An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation», Vol. 90 (2009) 305-333
This article argues that, though it cannot be doubted that there is a subversive quality to Paul’s letters, attempts to identify subversive subtexts have failed due to their preoccupation with what is deemed inherently subversive vocabulary. A better approach to grounding Paul’s anti-imperial theology is to recognize that he affirmed the subversive late Second temple Jewish-apocalyptic, and particularly Danielic, narrative that viewed Rome as final earthly kingdom that will be destroyed by the coming of God’s kingdom.
Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul:
An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation
Within the last decade or so interest in so-called “anti-imperial†or
“post-colonial†readings of Paul has grown immensely in Anglo-
American scholarly circles. Though they seem to have especially
flourished in the political climate of the Bush era, it is likely that the
topic will continue to be of interest among theologians in the English-
speaking world for some time to come, not least due to the fact that the
term “Empire†is no longer being used in its conventional political
sense. Rather, it has become a catchword for any power structures
deemed hegemonic and harmful, whether spiritual, economic,
ecological or otherwise. The “anti-imperial Paul†is likely to find
himself fighting any number of battles the real Paul never even
imagined: against globalization and hedge funds; for gay marriage and
polar bears. Thus, a great deal is at stake in the debate about Paul and
Empire. One’s position has implications for a whole host of questions.
I. Problems confronting the thesis of an “anti-imperial†Paul
1. Lack of Direct Anti-Roman Rhetoric
In some quarters the discussion proceeds as if it were an
established fact that Paul articulated an anti-imperial theology, but
valid questions remain. Luke certainly does not present Paul as a
subversive figure; in fact, he is at pains to defend Paul against the
charges brought against him as an anti-Roman agitator. Indeed, he
portrays him as a Roman citizen who is very much aware of the
benefits Rome has bestowed on him. Yet even if one discounts Luke’s
portrait of Paul as a tendentious piece of propaganda designed to
rehabilitate his hero in Roman eyes, we are still confronted by a lack of
explicit statements by Paul that could be construed as subversive.
It may well be argued that it would be unreasonable to expect them.
Authoritarian regimes like Rome simply do not tolerate that sort of
rhetoric (1), and no person who availed himself of public fora in the
(1) Cf. V. RUDICH, Political Dissidence under Nero. The Price of Dissimi-
lation (London 1993) 242: “On the balance of evidence, the Julio-Claudian regime
FOLLOW US