I thought I'd never want to look at it again, but for some reason I feel compelled to share my findings while writing my BA dissertation. I've just posted the abstract and conclusion. If you would like to read the whole thing then let me know! Please don't point out any mistakes... its already been handed in!
The Conflict Between Obedience to God and Obedience to the State in the Book of Revelation
Summary of the Abstract
The book of Revelation presents a dichotomy of state and believer within a larger eschatological battle of good and evil. The believer is exhorted to lay down their life and not attempt to usurp the state’s authority through violent revolution. In doing so the believer trusts that God will vindicate them in the Parousia. Furthermore, the believer is warned against finding safety from the conflict through wealth and comfort, as this too is a subtle form of evil. Thus the believer witnesses (martureo) until they become a martyr.
The Destruction of Leviathan by Gustave Doré (1865).
Summary of the Conclusion
Our study has loosely followed a pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In the first chapter we saw Maccabean and Zealot ideology as revolutionary and explicitly anti-state, which sought to replace Seleucid/Roman oppression with the High Priesthood. The antithesis to this was expressed in the book of Daniel, the teachings of Jesus in Matthew, and the writings of Paul, which presented an attitude that sought to accommodate the state, albeit occasionally attributing its authority to Satan. Revelation, however, served as the synthesis of these attitudes. John also attributes the state’s authority to Satan, but goes further to describe them in the same way he describes Jesus’ relationship with his Father. Furthermore, like the Zealots John rejects all apparently beneficial aspects of the state, and is highly critical of the seductive comfort and luxury that comes with imperial cultic adherence. Therefore John actually propitiates the obedience conflict where it is possible to avoid it.
Throughout this study I have argued seven important features of the obedience conflict. The first is that the believer is not called to violent revolution, but instead must lay down her life if it is demanded of her, and in doing so she is ironically obedient to the state’s punishment. The second is that literature on the subject must be viewed in light of a prescriptive-descriptive divide, for although some passages seem to command complete allegiance to the state, the writers were often caught up in conflict with the authorities themselves. The third is that the believer can only lay down his life in faith, as martyrdom seems pitifully ineffective when compared to revolution, and Revelation presents the former as effective and active in bringing the Parousia closer and crying out to God for justice (6:10).
The fourth is that the believer lives within the over-arching context of freedom/victory, and yet is simultaneously called to be obedient to the defeated state. Thus the state cannot compel the believer, but the believer’s obedience to God might cause her to compel herself. The fifth is that the rule of God is both ‘already’ and ‘not yet’, and thus the believer lives within an inaugurated eschatology: the Lamb has been slain but not everything has been made new. The sixth is that the state is under the control of Satan, and although the believer is called to be obedient to it, she is not called to be uncritical. For although the state might not be militarily oppressive, luxury and social standing serve as subtle forms of satanic influence, and thus the benefits of the state must be questioned along with the flaws.
Finally, authority, wealth and luxury are not to be rejected per se, but rather replaced with the legitimate rule and luxury of God. The believer should not seek to usurp the state but is called to be obedient to God and await justice. The believer is therefore constantly obedient to God regardless of what the state demands.
The Present in Light of the Past
We can loosely apply these conclusions to three very different modern examples of the obedience conflict: the redefinition of marriage, Bonhoeffer’s dilemma, and state welfare. I use these examples to illustrate the broad relevance of the obedience conflict and how some of the above conclusions might be practically implemented.
In the redefinition of marriage the Christian takes his definition of marriage from the over-arching victory/freedom and not from the state, even if the state seems to agree with the believer. Furthermore, ostricisation and social rejection are not to be avoided if such a conflict arises, and thus the believer must continue in faith at the cost of social standing or personal security.
In the context of Bonhoeffer’s dilemma there seemed only two options: the evil of turning a blind eye, and the evil of assassinating Hitler. Revelation, however, presents a third way of openly criticizing the state, which would have certainly incurred the death penalty. The believer does not seek martyrdom per se but hopes to bring change through open witness to the corruption. Naturally martyrdom would follow in this context, and if the state wishes to silence the witness then the witness accepts his death as further proof of the state’s corruption. On the outside this seems fruitless, but the believer lays down his life in faith that God will effect change and bring ultimate victory. The obedience conflict would never have arisen, however, if the believer did not openly oppose the state and resist through continuing to live out his faith in a visible/audible way. If he lied about his convictions, or if he used wealth to protect himself, he would no longer be relying on faith for his protection, but instead the Whore of Babylon.
In questions of state welfare the believer is called to look after the physical needs of individuals (Mt 25:35-40) and love her neighbours (Mt 22:36-40). The model of self-sacrifice and obedience is to be followed regardless of what the state provides because the believer lives under the authority of God first, and the state second. Thus the state is largely irrelevant to God’s call on the life of the believer.
Living with a Defeated Leviathan
The conflict between obedience to God and obedience to the state can therefore be described not in purely exclusive terms, but as an over-arching authority that requires its adherents to accommodate a lesser, defeated authority. Naturally this tension causes confusion and conflict in the life of the believer, yet one is temporary and the other is eternal, meaning that ultimately there is no competition as to whom the believer is to obey. However, if the believer ever finds herself in luxury without the danger of the obedience conflict ever arising, the book of Revelation questions the true cost of her comfort.
Throughout this study I have argued seven important features of the obedience conflict. The first is that the believer is not called to violent revolution, but instead must lay down her life if it is demanded of her, and in doing so she is ironically obedient to the state’s punishment. The second is that literature on the subject must be viewed in light of a prescriptive-descriptive divide, for although some passages seem to command complete allegiance to the state, the writers were often caught up in conflict with the authorities themselves. The third is that the believer can only lay down his life in faith, as martyrdom seems pitifully ineffective when compared to revolution, and Revelation presents the former as effective and active in bringing the Parousia closer and crying out to God for justice (6:10).
The fourth is that the believer lives within the over-arching context of freedom/victory, and yet is simultaneously called to be obedient to the defeated state. Thus the state cannot compel the believer, but the believer’s obedience to God might cause her to compel herself. The fifth is that the rule of God is both ‘already’ and ‘not yet’, and thus the believer lives within an inaugurated eschatology: the Lamb has been slain but not everything has been made new. The sixth is that the state is under the control of Satan, and although the believer is called to be obedient to it, she is not called to be uncritical. For although the state might not be militarily oppressive, luxury and social standing serve as subtle forms of satanic influence, and thus the benefits of the state must be questioned along with the flaws.
Finally, authority, wealth and luxury are not to be rejected per se, but rather replaced with the legitimate rule and luxury of God. The believer should not seek to usurp the state but is called to be obedient to God and await justice. The believer is therefore constantly obedient to God regardless of what the state demands.
The Present in Light of the Past
We can loosely apply these conclusions to three very different modern examples of the obedience conflict: the redefinition of marriage, Bonhoeffer’s dilemma, and state welfare. I use these examples to illustrate the broad relevance of the obedience conflict and how some of the above conclusions might be practically implemented.
In the redefinition of marriage the Christian takes his definition of marriage from the over-arching victory/freedom and not from the state, even if the state seems to agree with the believer. Furthermore, ostricisation and social rejection are not to be avoided if such a conflict arises, and thus the believer must continue in faith at the cost of social standing or personal security.
In the context of Bonhoeffer’s dilemma there seemed only two options: the evil of turning a blind eye, and the evil of assassinating Hitler. Revelation, however, presents a third way of openly criticizing the state, which would have certainly incurred the death penalty. The believer does not seek martyrdom per se but hopes to bring change through open witness to the corruption. Naturally martyrdom would follow in this context, and if the state wishes to silence the witness then the witness accepts his death as further proof of the state’s corruption. On the outside this seems fruitless, but the believer lays down his life in faith that God will effect change and bring ultimate victory. The obedience conflict would never have arisen, however, if the believer did not openly oppose the state and resist through continuing to live out his faith in a visible/audible way. If he lied about his convictions, or if he used wealth to protect himself, he would no longer be relying on faith for his protection, but instead the Whore of Babylon.
In questions of state welfare the believer is called to look after the physical needs of individuals (Mt 25:35-40) and love her neighbours (Mt 22:36-40). The model of self-sacrifice and obedience is to be followed regardless of what the state provides because the believer lives under the authority of God first, and the state second. Thus the state is largely irrelevant to God’s call on the life of the believer.
Living with a Defeated Leviathan
The conflict between obedience to God and obedience to the state can therefore be described not in purely exclusive terms, but as an over-arching authority that requires its adherents to accommodate a lesser, defeated authority. Naturally this tension causes confusion and conflict in the life of the believer, yet one is temporary and the other is eternal, meaning that ultimately there is no competition as to whom the believer is to obey. However, if the believer ever finds herself in luxury without the danger of the obedience conflict ever arising, the book of Revelation questions the true cost of her comfort.
