|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Was Romans chapter 13 Confirming that Christianity Was a Roman-Sponsored Mystery Cult
I have been scrutinizing the Patristic references to the Epistle to the Romans in the hopes of figuring out what Clement of Alexandria and Marcion thought the text meant. Everyone agrees that the Marcionites had this chapter in their letter. Yet some material was likely missing. Yet when I look at this chapter it presents a side of Christianity which is generally ignored. Let's read it:
Quote:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.
|
At first glance there seems to be two incompatible arguments laid side by side here - obedience to 'the authorities' and love of the neighbor. Yet when we look at the exegesis of Clement of Alexandria of Leviticus 19:18 (Love thy neighbor) it is becomes clear that the early Christian took the saying to mean 'love Jesus (= 'the neighbor' or associate of God).
I noted in my previous thread that the way Clement used the term 'neighbor' (πλησίον) it was apparent to me at least that there was a secret meaning in Alexandria to Lev 19:18 i.e. 'love thy neighbor.' Clement understood πλησίον to mean Jesus and I can confirm this now from a passage I just found in the Stromateis:
Quote:
|
So that if one loves himself, he loves the Lord, and confesses to salvation that he may save his soul. Though you die for your neighbour out of love, and regard the Saviour as our πλησίον (for God who saves is said to be nigh in respect to what is saved); you do so, choosing death on account of life, and suffering for your own sake rather than his. (Strom. 4.7)
|
Let's also see that the Question of the Rich Youth which in Clement's non-canonical gospel featured this 'mysterious' interpretation of the command to 'love thy πλησίον' (i.e. Jesus) stands only eleven or so lines from the beginning of the narrative that had this:
Quote:
|
And approaching, Jesus rolled the stone from the door of the tomb, and going in immediately where the young man was, he stretched out the hand and raised him, having grasped the hand. But the young man, having looked upon him, loved him (ηγαπησεν) and began to beg him that he might be with him. And going out from the tomb they went into the house of the young man; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave charge to him; and when it was evening the young man comes to him donning a linen sheet upon his naked body, and he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the kingdom of God. [to Theod. 3.1 - 10]
|
As I noted earlier, the Question of the Rich Youth curiously begins with a deliberate emphasis that Jesus is not the Father. Then, during the course of the discussion of the question of the rich youth he begins his re-interpretation of Lev 19.18 (i.e. Jesus is the πλησίον) and that he deserves 'love.' Now, in LGM 1, the conclusion of the cycle if you will, Jesus takes the youth back from the underworld where the paradigmatic ἀγάπης is enacted.
I want to stress over and over again that LGM 1 'makes sense' if you know that Lev 19.18 was originally integrated into Clement's preferred gospel's 'Question of the Rich Man' narrative. I implore people to read the references to this situation again, and remember that we have already determined that Clement understood the 'sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me' to point to some mystical ritual which transformed the flesh of the intitiates to purge it of 'passion' and ask themselves - is the existence of something like LGM 1 of Secret Mark is really that unthinkable given its proximity to this original pericope?
In other words, not only does the Question of the Rich Youth introduce the question of what it takes to attain the kingdom of heaven (or 'kingdom of God' in canonical Mark), Clement also intimates it prepares the way for something like a gnostic baptism ritual:
Quote:
The renunciation, then, and selling (πωλῆσαι) of all possessions (ὐπάρχοντα), is to be understood as expressly spoken of the passions of the soul (τῶν ψυχῶν παθῶν διειρημένον). [Quis Dives Salvetur 14]
And this is the import of “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” — that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “you have” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to you in your magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the holy place. [Strom. 4.6]
Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments~ from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake. For such an one—one who fulfils the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”—is perfect. For this is the true luxury — the treasured wealth. But that which is squandered on foolish lusts is to be reckoned waste, not expenditure. For God has given to us, I know well, the liberty of use, but only so far as necessary; and He has determined that the use should be common [Strom 3.6]
|
This is what I think is the original context of Romans chapter 13 (and why there was so much interpolation in Romans generally). The apostle begins to talk about the 'death' of the initiate, his resurrection and now his 'loving the πλησίον' (= Christ). This is said to be the 'fulfillment of the Law.'
I don't see how this can be at all controversial given what Clement tells us about 'the πλησίον.' I think people have to read Clement and they will see this was the Alexandrian interpretation. Where things get more controversial of course is when I suggest that the Marcionite and Alexandrian understanding go back to the original political situation in Palestine at the time of the destruction of the Jewish temple. In other words, the original context is the Jewish War, the question of 'taxes' literally means 'taxes' (= the Jewish revolt was a tax revolt) and submission to the Roman government was literally the agenda of the apostle.
As crazy as it sounds, how else can we explain the transition from chapter 1 -12 to chapter 13? In other words, Christianity was a government sanctioned mystery religion to replace the Jewish religion c. 70 CE.
|
09-29-2011, 10:44 AM
