FOUR POLITICAL LEXICONS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

INTRODUCTION

This article is an attempt to name four political lexicons of the early Christian political writings. The works taken as basis for this composition are the writings of the early Apologists down to the philosophical-theological writings of the Saint Augustine. This background then must enable us to see the context of the ideas pursued in the mentioned works. This is the time when Christianity was yet a young religion, and was yet constantly criticized and even persecuted by the powerful Romanic and Greek cultures. The writings of the apologists are the first attempts of Christianity to give “intellectual” justifications for the Christian religion. It was said that Christianity was scorned by the Greeks who could not accept a God who would die for his people on the cross. The Greeks simply believed that Christianity is ridiculous, and they considered the Christians as simply superstitious and “un-intellectuals.”

The early apologetical writings then are attempts to show to the Romans and Greeks that Christianity is as rational as the philosophical systems of the Greek classical philosophical writings. The Apologists were the first philosophers of the Christian religion, who argued that Christianity is in fact logically viable. In fact, some of them have argued that the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were Christians despite their ignorance about their being Christians. Some Apologists said that by the fact that the early philosophers have pursued the truth, they were already pursuing Christ, hence, they were already Christians.

Bearing this Christian bias at the background, it has to be understood first that the concepts to be presented are thus Christian concepts, that is, they are serving the purpose of proving the existence of a God, and in addition, they were also taken from the Apologists who were trying to argue against Roman and Greek critics on behalf of the Christian religion. In what would follow then are the four political lexicons chosen for this particular exposition:




THE FOUR POLITICAL LEXICONS

KINGDOM

Christianity came out of a culture whose people have been once accustomed to a monarchy. We know in history that the Israelites were once a known monarchy especially during the time of King David and Solomon. Even though the monarchy of the Israelite people has deteriorated and has eventually led to the invasion of the Roman empire, the Israelite people were still expecting that they would one day restore such monarchy. Hence, the Israelites were long waiting and wanting for the coming of the messiah, whom they believed to be a King-warrior like the great King David, and this messiah would finally lead Israel to a successful revolution against the rule of the Romans in Israel. This expectation is evident in the Scriptural emphasis that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, came from the line of David. The first followers of Jesus were themselves unsure of what really Jesus is for. They were in fact keeping that very same expectation. They were expecting Jesus to become their political leader who would re-establish the kingdom of Israel.

Hence, this is the expectation that Jesus raised when he announced that the “Kingdom of God” is at hand. The people around him took this pronouncement as a signal that the rebellion is about to start. His disciples grew in number with many of them keeping the expectation that they would soon rise in arms to topple down the foreign rule of Rome. Such revolution is nothing new for the people of Israel for they were also accustomed with having religious leaders who would soon become a political inspiration. There were already stories of people who raised a good number of followers to revolt against Rome, though unsuccessfully. Some of the followers of Christ were also thinking that he would do the same. Hence, we see for example, the intervention of the mother of two of Jesus’ apostles, asking Jesus that when the time would come that he would sit on his reign, he would allow one to sit on his right, and the other to sit on his left. This is one of the earliest attempts to lobby a political decision. There was an expectation that Jesus, given his charisma and other powers, would soon rise to a political seat.

The same expectation was present not just among the Jewish followers of Christ, but also with the ruling Roman government. The Romans were also aware of the earlier attempts for revolution. Hence, they were already anxious of the growing number of Jesus’ disciples because such following may become so great that they might successfully repel the Roman government away. Hence, the Roman government did treat Jesus harshly because considered him to a dangerous leader of the rebels.

But this expectation for a “KINGDOM” died when Christ was crucified to the cross. The crucifixion both frustrated the peoples’ expectation and eased the Romans’ anxiety about the supposed rebellion of Jesus. With the crucifixion, many of Jesus’ followers had left.

This was also the reason of the big surprise of the Roman and the Greeks later on when they learned that the followers of Jesus persevered in their respective communities despite the death of Christ. These Roman and Greek critics then believed that these Christians were truly superstitious people because they clung to their belief about the restoration of their “kingdom” despite the death of their leader.

This criticism then becomes the object of the apologists’ defense. Against the ridicule of the Greeks and Romans, the apologists argued that the latter were mistaken to think that Christianity works for the restoration of an earthly kingdom because Christians are working for God’s kingdom. The apologists clarified that the worldly kingdom is not the Kingdom of God, and the former is far inferior compared with the latter. For this, the First Apology says in paragraph 11: “And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you uncritically suppose that we speak of a human one; whereas we speak of that with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, although they know that death is the penalty meted out to him who so confesses. For if we look for a human kingdom, we would deny it, that we might not be slain; and we would try to escape detection, that we might obtain the things we look for. But since we do not have our hope of the present, we do not heed our executioners, since death is in any case the debt of nature.” (p.11)

But what is important in this Christian discourse about the kingdom is that, Christians argued that despite the fact that they were not looking for a human kingdom, they promise to be cooperative with the rulers of the earthly kingdom. They for example argued that they are peace-keeping, and peace-loving persons, and so, Christians should not be treated as menace in the society. Rather than be treated as rebellious people, Christians can be supportive of the state in the sense that Christians, who aspire for the kingdom of God, are non-covetous people, non-wicked people. Hence, they can truly contribute for the building up of this earthly kingdom, despite their non-belonging to this kingdom.

The discourse on the kingdom then is a big discourse in the early Christian writings, especially because of the fact that Christ himself has referred to a Kingdom in the ministry. Though it was claimed that the kingdom of God is different from the earthly kingdom, it has to be born in mind that the human kingdom can bear semblance to that of the Kingdom of God. Hence, the ideals of the Kingdom of God such as peace and harmony can also be pursued as ideals of this human kingdom. In the same way as the Kingdom of God is the perfect kingdom, the earthly kingdom may also imitate it.

AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE

One evident political lexicon which we can also see in the gospels is the talk on the political authorities. There was once an attempt to discredit Christ as a teacher, and so his regard to the political authorities was tested. The critics of Christ had heard him speak of God as the only ruler and King, and so they ask Jesus on how should the people regard the emperor of Rome, or the political authorities. To this query, Jesus replied: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what belongs to God.”

In the writings of the apologists, it could obviously be seen that despite Christianity’s claim that God is the absolute ruler Christians are still respectful of the political authorities. But Christians’ regards to the political rulers may however be different from that of a non-Christian.

Christianity believes that the authorities of the state, human authorities, are not absolute leaders. They do not hold powers by virtue only of themselves. Rather, leaders are said to be ministers of God. In the Book 5 of Against Heresies, the apostle Paul was cited, “Be ye subject to all the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, now of those which are have been ordained by God.” (p.16) The earthly rulers, the early Christians believed, are ministers or ordained by God. If they are so, then we need to respect them. In the book of Romans it was also mentioned, “For this cause, pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers attending to this very thing.” (Rom. 13:1)Two things can then be concluded from here: (1) cooperation with the state is a Christian service because it is at the same time a service for God, (2) Civil service is primarily rendered through the civil servants’ moral integrity because he is acting on behalf of God. This then is not too different from other lines of thought. It can even be compared to the Confucian concept of a minister that is, a minister has to be morally upright. Hence, Christianity calls for moral rectitude if one goes to civil service not just because such is needed for a good administration of the affairs of the state, but more importantly even, because such is the civil servants’ responsibility and accountability to God.

Now, if this is the Christian understanding of the authorities, how do the Christians treat rebellion then? Implicitly, the apologists justify a rebellion when the legitimate need arises. But rebellion however should not be treated as an attack against the authorities of the state. Rebellion is not against the authority held by the civil servant, for as mentioned such authority flows from God. But rather the people’s rebellion is in itself a solution to be offered against the rebellion of the civil servant himself. Rebellion is done against the civil servant who first rebelled against the authority leased on him. Book 5 of Against Heresies said, “Behold I confer on you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy, in order that as he obtained dominion over men by rebellion, so again his rebellion might be deprived of power by means of men turning back to God.”(p.18)

Rebellion then is justified. However, it is not to be understood as an attack against power but rather as a “turning back to God.” The abusive leader is the first rebel himself, and it is but the responsibility of a conscientious Christian citizen to do justice to the authority of God accorded to a particular office, and so, the citizens have to rebel, which at the same time is an act of journeying back to God.

Hence, with regard to authorities, we are all enjoined and morally obliged to respect authorities because they are acting on behalf of God, and their authority and power comes from God. But once they turned to become abusive leaders, it is our duty, as citizens, to preserve the dignity of the authority of God, by taking away such authority from an abusive leader.

LAWS

The concept of Law is another political lexicon which even finds a place in the mouth of Christ: “I have come not to abolish the law but to perfect it.” Jesus is considered to be the new Moses because Jesus is the bringer of the new Law, whereas Moses was the one entrusted by Yahweh with the Law that governs Israel’s covenant with God. In Book 1 of Stromateis, the argument was rather simple in order to defend the Christian-Jewish tradition of the Law. When the Greeks and Romans were ignoring Christianity, the Apologists simply said that Moses is among the ancient leaders of a group that has even become inspiration to Greek and Roman writers. One example cited was Moses’ strategy of bringing the Israelites to the desert rather than treading the straight path going to Canaan. The Christian writer believed that such action is Moses’ military strategy: he escaped attention from their pursuers. The author said that this strategy was even used by the Athenian general, Miltiades. The author said, “Miltiades, the Athenian general who conquered the Persians at the battle of Marathon, took note of this and modeled his tactics on it.” Using other examples, the author used this argument to claim that Moses, a pillar in the Jewish and Christian, tradition is even the inspiration of the Greeks. Then how can the Greeks call Christianity a base religion?

But one of the most striking convergence of thought between Moses and the Greek classics is in Plato’s teaching about politics. For Plato treated politics in two spheres: law and politics proper. The discourse on the Law is particularly important because the Greek concept of Law seemed to have been patterned also from that of Moses.

Moses was given the law in Mount Sinai. But these laws are more than provisions for exacting punishment to the erring members of the community. Rather, these laws are systems of training those who are in their way of becoming responsible. (p.35) The people of Israel have to be trained first to become responsible before the promised land is given them. Further the text says, “The law in its care of the obedient, educates them in piety, prescribing what is to be done while restraining them from misdeeds.” Law is then construed in a more positive light, that is, as a venue of formation for the people. Later Christian thinkers would pick this up, and this can even be a helpful vantage point of view nowadays. We now talk of restorative justice. We employ justice not really to exact the same degree of pain and evil to the one who committed the crime, but rather, to aid the sinner in his transformation so that he would refrain from sinning further. Thomas Aquinas himself said, law is designed to establish friendship among men. If men are lawful, then they can easily become friends to one another. This can also be the reason why Augustine would claim that there cannot be unjust laws. He says, “I think that a law that is not just is not a law.” (book 1, On the Free Choice of the Will; p.113) Laws are formative, and so it cannot be one that is unjust.

JUSTICE

Related to the previous lexicon mentioned is the discourse on justice. In Book V of Divine Institutes, there was a discussion on Justice, where it says that there are two virtues that are intimately bound with justice. These are namely, piety and equality.

The apologist had to mention these two virtues in order to give justification for a monotheistic religion as it stood face to face the polytheistic cultures of the Greeks and Romans. The author again cited Plato who “had much to say about one God, who has created this world.” (p.52) But interestingly, Plato discussed no religion. Hence, the author argues, to believe in one God only is really proper to the nature of man. The author then claims here that piety is one expression of justice. It is rendering something that is proper to our nature. Justice must allow the Christians to believe in one God, and hence Christians should not be persecuted, because even Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates admits as reasonable the existence of one God.

Secondly, justice is related to the virtue of equality. The argument of the author simply is: “we are all equal as men, and justice demands that we simply treat each other as one’s equal.” He also said that to treat each other as each one’s equal is present also in the teaching of Cicero. The latter calls this as “equability.”(p.52) Hence, the author also argues that Greeks and Romans, if they truly are just must allow Christianity, because Christians are also their equals. The fact then that Christians were persecuted in the Roman empire would mean that the Romans did not consider other people as equals, and that they are themselves unjust. Their injustice is attested not just by their Christian victims but even by Cicero who adheres to the concept of “equability.”

CONCLUSION

The above exposition is a mere attempt to name some of the political lexicons among early Christians. These words were again used for a specific purpose: in defense of Christianity. Hence, they may not have really displayed reference to actual universal practices in the society, except when they directly affect the Christians. But despite that, these lexicons were carried over by the succeeding Christians who become thinkers of their own time, and hence in a way affect the progress / development of the political thought of the world.