A Faithful Rendering-- Christopher Bryan's 'Render to Caesar'

Christopher Bryan, Render to Caesar, (Oxford: O.U. Press, 2005), pp. viii+ 185, $35.00.

            I must confess from the outset that I have a particular inclination to like Christopher Bryan's recent book, as he is a man after my own heart (and sharing a similar education and profession).  He analyzes the NT with the wealth of knowledge he has gained from training not only in the NT but in Greco-Roman classics, rhetoric, and early Judaism.  The result is a full orbed way of reading the NT in light of all its major influences and confluences.  Having read his previous major studies on Mark and Romans, one is thus quite naturally expecting a good and helpful read when it comes to Render to Caesar, and Bryan does not disappoint. He is eloquent, he is on target, he is persuasive, and he exhibits, as my namesake Ben Jonson once said that 'chief virtues of a style---perspicuity'.  This book may be slender but its force and ideas are not slight and they are expressed clearly and convincingly.   I would rate this as one of the ten best books written about the NT in the last ten years.   Taking it in is rather like eating very rich food--- you need to take small bites at a time, chew thoroughly and then swallow. The fact that some will find some of it, or much of it hard to swallow, does not in any way detract from the merit and the power of this little book.

            Sometimes it is good to know from the outset who the primary dialogue partners or antagonists are when an author sets out to proof a thesis, and in this case the authors being most critiqued in this study would be Richard Horsley, Dom Crossan, Warren Carter, (asnd more recently Neil Elliott) and in general those who subscribe to the 'imperial domination system theory' when it comes to the Roman Empire and the imperial cult theory when it comes to Roman worship.  In other words, it is critiquing the notion that the Roman Empire is simply painted in black colors in the NT as inherently an evil empire and that lurking beneath the surface of much of the NT is a critique of the imperial cult.   Bryan does think there is some critique of the imperial cult in the NT, though not nearly so much as some of these scholars suggest,  but he does not think that the NT is arguing a case to replace one form of government with another, one set of political structures with another. Bryan does not think either Jesus or the NT writers attempt to make such a case, not even the author of Revelation per se.  But let us hear Bryan's own statement of his thesis, in this case speaking about Jesus himself

            In sum, there is nothing in the narratives of Jesus' ministry that sets him apart from the general theology of empire that was adumbrated by the traditions of Nathan, Jeremiah, Daniel, Deutero-Isaiah, and Ezra and that is characteristic of the biblical tradition. The tradition of his words and works in general do not indicate the slightest interest in changing the forms or structures of temporal power, in replacing one system of government with another, or in questions as to whether those who ruled were believed to be believers or  pagans. Those same traditions do, however, indicate a concern that those who have power understand it as God's gift to them, given for the sake of God's people and the world. This is the attitude that Jesus consistently maintains on every occasion where he is seen dealing with those who have temporal authority.  (p. 50).

            Mutatis mutandis, Bryan will argue that the NT writers themselves do not take a more radical view that their Lord.  The words of the Johannine Jesus to Pilate say it all--"you would have no power over me, if it had not been given to you."  This is not different from what Paul says in Rom. 13.   The biblical tradition then, as viewed by Bryan, is not in the main concerned with the forms nor the origins of human power structures per se. It is not even particularly concerned with whether a believer is in office or not.  "The biblical tradition is concerned, however with the purposes for which power structures are ordained, and it is concerned that those in power should fulfill these purposes. Thus the biblical tradition subverts human order not by attempting to dismantle it or replace it with other structures but by consistently confronting its representatives with the truth about its origin and purpose. Its origin is that God wills it, and its purpose is to serve the glory of God by promoting God's peace and God's justice for all. Powers and superpowers are allowed to exist, and may even be approved [think of Cyrus the Persian, called 'my anointed one' in Isaiah], but they are always on notice. Biblical tradition is therefore utterly opposed to the absolutizing of governmental authority (Dan. 3.4-6!) or to the exercise of that authority without concern for those who are subject." (p. 125).   

            It can be added that Bryan stresses as well that the Bible is absolutely opposed to idolatry as well in governmental form or as perpetrated and imposed by a government which is why there certainly is a critique of pagan power including the imperial cult in the NT.  But the critique is not laid at the door of 'empire' per se, it is laid at the door of idolatry, including the misuse of governmental power for pagan religious purposes.  The problem with Babylon in Revelation is not that it is Babylon or even that it is Empire--the problem is it promotes idolatry and immorality and as such abuses legitimate governing power.

            Bryan's critique of the 'inherently evil empire' theory cuts several ways of course.  On the one hand, it gives no solace to Marxist analysis of the NT and its attempt to paint Jesus and/or some of his followers as early examples of Che Guevara, in other words as revolutionaries or rebels with a cause. On the other hand, his critique suggests that kings and kingdoms are not inherently bad ideas or illegitimate forms of government, and so the NT does not provide a basis for the supposition that democracy is what Jesus really meant when he said the Kingdom of God is at hand.   Freedom in Christ is not equated with democracy in political structure or in the governmental constitution.   This is of course why Paul, who is the big advocate for freedom in Christ in the NT, is also perfectly comfortable with suggesting, perhaps drawing on Jesus' render unto Caesar teaching, that Christians should be good citizens and show honor and respect to governing officials, and pay their taxes as well.  1 Peter says much the same, also probably drawing on the precedent in early Jewish and Jesus' teaching.  The line of honor is drawn at the point where idolatry and immorality are expected or required.

            Having set out Bryan's major thesis, it will be useful to share some of his supporting conclusions along the way. One of the things that is so evident throughout this book is the even-handedness of the treatment of the Biblical evidence.  When there is a critique of a ruler or his practices, then Bryan says so.  When there is commendation, then he says so. He is not interesting in making out the Bible to support some modern theory of government of whatever sort. Jesus on the one hand did not have a problem with paying taxes, nor was he, like Judas the Galilean, an advocate for revolt against Rome. The kingdom of which he was the advocate involved direct divine intervention in human lives, not a voting out or in, or a throwing out or in of this or that regime. His kingdom was in this world but not of it, but being in this world, it immediately became the most important kingdom of all, demanding ultimate allegiance, and when there was conflict with lesser kingdoms, one had to serve God rather than human governments.

It is thus not responsible to simply demonize the Roman governmental system per se, and the NT writers do not do so.  And as for the death of Jesus Bryan opines--- "the historical probability is that Jesus' death was brought about not by bad people or evil systems but by average people--- indeed, in the case of the Sanhedrin, probably better than average--doing the best they could under systems that were no worse than others in the ancient world, and perhaps rather better than most....The death of Jesus is no more a symbol of his relationship to the Roman imperial order than it is a symbol of his relationship to Jews. It is a symbol of his relationship to the world. And that means, to us."  (p. 64).  In short Bryan sees some Jewish leaders and Pilate as involved in the death of Jesus without it being a comment writ large against either early Jewish life or the Sanhedrin or a comment against the Roman Empire and its jurisprudence.  Bryan utterly rejects the strange notion of Crossan that the earliest Christians knew little or nothing about the particulars of Jesus' trial (s) and execution. On the contrary, the whole tradition found in both Gospels and Paul suggest there were multiple eyewitnesses amongst Jesus' followers to the whole process that led to his death, burial, and resurrection (see. e.g 1 Cor. 15 and Acts 1).

            When it comes to Paul's presentation of the Gospel, Bryan reminds that Paul operated in a world where there were gods many and lords many  and saviors aplenty (see 1 Cor. 8) and it simply was not inherently treasonous to suggest Jesus was one of them.  The facile claim that saying Jesus is Lord necessarily implied (and you, the Emperor, are not) is too easy a claim.  He puts the matter thusly: "Such a view of emperor worship treats it, I suspect, far too much as if it were a phenomenon like Christianity. Greco-Roman religion (from which emperor worship should not be separated) did not, essentially, involve a body of doctrine and belief as does Christianity, but rather was a practice of honoring the gods....The fact is, even at the height of the persecutions, Rome's problem with Christianity appear generally to have nothing to do with what Christians believed or claimed about Jesus and everything to do with Christians' refusal to honor the Roman gods." (pp. 91-92).  Whilst I think this conclusion is basically right, I think it is somewhat overstated, not least because the only two historical first century persons about whom such divine claims were being made throughout the empire and over a considerable period of time was the Emperor and the Christ. While imperial theology may not have produced textbooks or sacred scriptures its rhetoric and propaganda was plastered all over the empire.  So here, I think Bryan over-eggs the pudding as the Brits would say.  It does seem clear that Paul, and the author of Revelation and perhaps others were claimed that Jesus is truly the human divine one, and the Emperor, despite claims to the contrary is not.  The critique of the imperial cult, with or without developed imperial theology is present in the NT precisely because it is seen as an inherent manifestation of idolatry. While Greco-Roman religion was mainly about praxis and ritual, it had its theological elements, especially when it came to the Emperor cult.  Julius Caesar would not have raised the same concerns as Domitian precisely because of the different nature of the claims being made about each.

            There is so much more to Bryan's panegyric but I will leave you to find out about it on your own.  Suffice it to say that this book has all the earmarks of a truly good theological book--- it teases the mind into active thought and forces you to rethink your previous paradigms and conclusions.

BW3