On the basis of this comparison, Aune concludes: “The author’s use [in
Revelation] of the royal/imperial edict form is part of his strategy to polar-
ize God/Jesus and the Roman emperor, who is but a pale and diabolical
imitation of God. In his role as the eternal sovereign and king of kings,
Jesus is presented as issuing solemn and authoritative edicts befitting his
status” (1997, 129). One might just as easily conclude, however, on the
basis of the same comparison, that God and Jesus in Revelation are mirror-
imitations of the Roman emperor. For this reason, to repeat the previous cita-
tion: “In his role as the eternal sovereign and king of kings, Jesus is
presented [in Rev. 2:1–3:22] as issuing solemn and authoritative edicts
befitting his status” (Aune 1997, 129). Such language, originally of resist-
ance, soon would serve equally well as the discourse of succession.
The Pauline Corpus
The writings of Paul present a more puzzling paradigm, though not at the
level of the Pauline Corpus itself. The complete presentation of the apostle
and his thought in the fourteen writings that together make up his canon-
ical legacy underscores very much as Luke-Acts does the good character of
Christianity as imperial citizen. Thus, for example, 1 Timothy establishes
as the first order of business in arranging the affairs of “the household of
God...which is the assembly [ekklêsia] of the living God” (3:15), that one
should “before all else make requests, prayers, petitions, thanksgivings on
behalf of all persons, [which is to say,] on behalf of kings and all who are
in positions of authority, so that we might lead a peaceful and quiet life in
all piety and veneration” (2:1–4; cf. 1 Pet. 2:13–17). Similarly, the author of
Ephesians makes it clear that “our struggle is not against enemies of blood
and flesh,” including presumably the present imperial order; rather, Chris-
tians are supposed to struggle against “the cosmic powers of this present
darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places,” and other
things equally invisible and ethereal (6:12). The canonical reader is thereby
encouraged to understand comparable pronouncements elsewhere in the
corpus paulinumsuch as Romans 13:1–7 or 1 Thessalonians 4:12 as also
advocating unswerving civil obedience.
Again, it does not really matter what the original meaning of these
texts now is said to be. For example, Neil Elliott (1997b) struggles valiantly
to make Paul not mean in Romans 13:1–7 everything that these verses
have been understood to demand in the subsequent history of their inter-
pretation. Elliott’s concluding claim that “[o]nly the most pernicious twists
of fate would later enlist these verses in the service of the empire itself”
(1997b, 204) fails to consider how the Pauline Corpus itself already provided