the context for such a reading. Moreover, insofar as the various writings of
the Pauline Corpus all were read soon in the light or under the auspices of
the Book of Acts, it is precisely the politically compliant or quiescent fea-
tures of these texts, which logically one might assume also to be normative
or typical for Paul in his letters.
Again as with Luke-Acts, there are other texts in the Pauline Corpus
which once may have registered resistance or opposition to Roman rule. Pre-
cisely, however, because of the imperial tenor of these texts, they, too, soon
would function just as well to explain (the prospect of) Christian domi-
nance. Thus, for example, the image of the Christian assembly (ekklêsia) as
the body of Christ, with Christ as its head, makes use of a number of stock
political tropes in antiquity to explain the specific nature of the church.
The symbol of the human body and its head was, in fact, a regular feature
of Roman imperial propaganda. Consider, for example, what Angela Stand-
hartinger writes about Colossians:
The image of the state as a body that needs a head, whose lack or com-
peting possibilities lead to war and destruction, is variously used in the
time after the republic to legitimate the Roman emperor....Also the
image of the ligaments and sinews, whereby the body is joined to the
head, is used in presentations of the Roman ruler....In contrast with
Roman state philosophy, it is not the emperor but Christ, in Colossians,
who is the head of the ekklêsia, viz. the body. Christ in Colossians takes
the place of the emperor. Not only has his good news or gospel already
been proclaimed throughout the whole world (Col 1:5f, 23); he is also
the head of the body, through which growth is made possible. The
ekklêsiais his body, as the imperium is the body of the emperor. Finally,
in Colossians, the rule of Christ not only guarantees unity but also peace
(Col 3:15). The ecclesiology of Colossians thus competes with contem-
porary state philosophy. (Standhartinger 1999, 227–28; my translation)
Yet again, all of this may be true, exactly as stated, as far as it goes. The
author of Colossians understood the early Christian assembly to consti-
tute an alternate body politic to the Roman Empire with Christ as ersatz
ruler (in this sense, “Christ in Colossians takes the place of the emperor”);
an equally universal gospel provided all the standard benefits—unity and
peace—of imperial rule. At the same time, this form of competition with
contemporary state philosophy ultimately represents merely another
instance of it (in this sense, “Christ in Colossians takes the place of the
emperor”), since the only clear difference between the two competing
options would be Christ instead of Caesar. Such personalized competition
for supreme command was, once more, a standard feature of Roman impe-
Why Christianity Succeeded (in) the Roman Empire 269