| Englewood Christian Church |
|
Newsletter Archive: |
Volume 53 Number 3 , May 1, 2004
Paul and Roman Citizenship
Jim Aldrich
A current discussion concerns the relationship we, as the church, are to have with the nation. Some claim that U.S. citizenship is very important and that we are to be vitally involved in the affairs of the country. Others see national citizenship as insignificant to the citizenship we hold in the kingdom of God, and claim that our involvement in the power structures of the nation is detrimental to our existence as the body of Christ.
Twice in scripture Paul claims Roman citizenship. What use did Paul make of that citizenship? When did he ignore that citizenship? What value did he place on it? Both passages need to be examined and evaluated to find answers. The passages in question are Acts 16:11-40 and 21:1-15 - 28:31. The particular verses in which Paul makes his claim are 16:37 and 22:25-27.
ACTS 16
This narrative finds Paul and Silas in Philippi, where they have run into difficulties with the authorities because they have interfered with the livelihoods of several Philippian residents. As a result they were stripped, flogged, put in stocks and jailed. At no time did Paul mention the fact he was a Roman citizen, a fact which would have made these punishments illegal. It would also seem he did not have the appearance of a Roman citizen; there was nothing about his manner that caused the officials to question his citizenship. After the night in jail, which included an earthquake and the conversion of the jailer with his family, Paul is ordered released. Now he drops the bombshell about Roman citizenship. He insists the chief magistrates themselves come to release them, which they fearfully do. Paul apparently could have caused them significant damage for what they had done to him. But he doesn’t do them harm; he receives no benefit, nor does he attempt to affect any public policy. He just lets the officials know they seriously messed up, and are guilty under their own law. Paul and Silas chose to allow themselves to be publicly humiliated and physically abused without revealing their citizenship. When they did reveal it, there was no advantage, other than a possible legal leverage which they chose not to apply. Citizenship was not used to further the gospel, or keep Paul from genuine physical harm.
ACTS 21 through 28
Paul and friends go to Jerusalem, against the advice of Agabus, Paul’s associates, and the disciples in Tyre. (The disciples in Tyre had a message through the spirit; Agabus was a prophet and also had a message from the spirit.) At the request of James and the elders (and here is the detail that caused all the turmoil) he takes four men (Jews who had become Christians) with him through the rite of purification. Jews from Asia see him in the temple with these four and assume he brought gentiles in. They create a big uproar and try to kill Paul.
Roman troops come to the rescue, arresting, and binding Paul with chains. He is taken to safety, but before entering the barracks Paul asks to speak to the crowd - which was quickly becoming a mob. At this time Paul identifies himself to the tribune as a Jew and a citizen of Cilician Tarsus. After being given permission to speak, he tells his story in a way that interests, then enflames, his audience. The Romans take him inside to safety and prepare to ‘examine’ him, by whipping, to determine what all the commotion is about. How has this old man - twice - been able to get the public so upset they want to kill him?
At this point Paul asks a seemingly innocent question about Roman law; “is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen, who is not condemned?’ He could have asked the question long before this, and he didn’t need to ask about the law-he knew what the law was and what he was doing. He had already identified himself in a way that ignored the Roman citizenship-a detail most of his auditors would have thought was most important! He asked in such a way that it frightened the Roman officers. He was not beaten.
Next morning he was released, at which time he spoke to the Jews again, again provoking them, leading the Romans to again secure him for his own safety. The tribune later had Paul taken, under cover of darkness, to a Roman stronghold; he was protecting the life of a fellow Roman. A force of 470 men was used to get Paul out of town. The tribune would subsequently claim he rescued Paul because he had learned Paul was a Roman citizen-which was not true at the time of the initial rescue, but which put a good spin on the story.
When the Jews came to Caesarea they claimed Paul incited riots-which was true. But Paul didn’t do so until accosted himself; he had simply been minding his own business. When he entered the fray he didn’t do it diplomatically. Consequently, he spent the next two years under arrest.
At the end of these two years, a new governor, Festus came to power. The Jews wanted Paul sent back to Jerusalem so they could kill him on the way. Festus, for his part, wanted to do the Jews a favor. He didn’t know of the plot to ambush Paul (would he care if he knew?), so he offered Paul the opportunity to go to Jerusalem to be tried there. Paul would rather not. He has no reason to go to Jerusalem, and a rather significant reason not to: he appealed to the emperor
Meanwhile King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea, heard the evidence of Festus, and listened to Paul. They determine he could have been set free if he hadn’t appealed to Caesar. But he has, so it’s off to Rome for Paul. Much later, after a rugged start to the trip, Paul had an encouraging message from an angel: he must stand trial before Caesar, and God has given him the lives of those sailing with him.
CONCLUSIONS
The gospel seems to be for those who are powerless, or amenable to divesting themselves of power, not for those who have committed themselves to the exercise of the powers of the present age. Jesus didn’t pick his disciples from the leading people of his day. Rather, he chose those who existed on the margins of the powers; the taxpayers, not those who levied the taxes; the common folk who bore the cost of nation building, not the nation builders and their agents.
Paul could have simply gone to Rome had that been what God wanted. God had been able to direct him before without having to resort to such convoluted arrangements. Paul had enough popular appeal that people, influential people, wanted to see and hear him. But Paul didn’t go to Rome: he went to Jerusalem. The prophetic word his brothers and sisters received before he went there led them to strongly urge him not to go. He rejected their counsel. Their wisdom was driven by their concern for Paul and was under the influence of the spirit of God. This is a good example that even if one has a “word from God”, that word does not have self evident meaning: it must be evaluated.
The chief men of the church in Jerusalem were concerned about appearances, so they had Paul do something which was unnecessary in an attempt to improve his standing with the Jews. They had him take four men through the rite of purification with him, a practice the Jews might appreciate but which had no value for the maturing of the church in Jerusalem. In fact, it seems more like accommodation to the religious culture than anything. This is the event that caused the problem; not Paul or the men being there, but the assumption by some Jews that Paul had gentiles in the temple. This might be a good example of what results when we are concerned with appearances and motive, rather than truth, love, and maturity in Christ.
So in this story we have Paul rejecting the counsel of those closest to him, even those who have had a word from God. And he accepts the counsel of those in Jerusalem he is not particularly close to, of whose high standing he professes to have no particular regard, and who are motivated by their concern for appearance.
What an odd chain of events. We have much to learn from them, but not, I believe, that Paul used his Roman citizenship to provide opportunities for the gospel, that he valued Kingdom and Roman citizenship as different but compatible, or that he owed any allegiance to Rome as God’s instrument of grace for the church.
|
|