BERRY FRIESEN AND JOHN K. STONER. If Not Empire, What? A Survey of the Bible. N.P.: Create Space, DBA On-Demand Publishing, LLC, 2014. US$ 17.
John K. Stoner has been a prophet among the Brethren in Christ and the broader ecumenical community for more than four decades—advocating for peace and justice based on his reading of Scripture. In this book, he joins Berry Friesen, a Mennonite lawyer, lobbyist, media spokesperson, and nonprofit administrator, to focus on the timely theme of “empire.”
The authors define “empire” as: “coordinated control that enriches itself through overwhelming socio-economic and military power…by morally powerful stories about evil… .It portrays itself as the primary source of security and peace in the world” (7). By contrast, the biblical understanding of power “operates by truth-telling and compassion, forgiveness and opportunities to try again” (7).
The book surveys the entire biblical text with special attention to this theme of “empire.” This review will summarize the work in a manner that makes evident the considerable attention that the Bible gives to this important and relevant theme. Genesis 1-11 culminates as people “started to build a city and completed its tower, a tall ziggurat,” but “YHWH opposed the empire’s pretentions” (53-54). Later in Genesis, Abram left the Mesopotamian imperial world to live in tents (57-58), and Joseph rose to power in the Egyptian empire, which enslaved his descendants (60).
In Exodus, the stories of Moses’ deliverance from Egypt “made fools of the Egyptians” (61; all italics in the review are the authors’). Nevertheless, it took the Israelites 40 years in the wilderness to overcome their pining for the material blessing of the Egyptian empire (73). Indeed, the first four commandments received by Moses in the wilderness required the rejection of the idolatry of allegiance to empire, and the Sinai covenant was “a declaration of independence from imperial kings” (75).
When the Assyrian Empire threatened Israel and Judah, Exodus declared: “YHWH will defeat empire for you…by turning their prowess and pride into liabilities” (69) and “includes instructions…on how to become ‘a priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (Ex. 19:6) and a witness to the world [empire]” (77). In Numbers, the 10 spies counseled return to Egypt rooted “in the calculus of empire, measuring choices by the metrics of military might” (81). Deuteronomy “endorses centralized power via a king” (84), but “sets limits on how a king may behave” (87). In Joshua, those “who wanted Israel to be a mini-empire” made “centralization of worship rituals…a key strategy” (92). After the destruction of the northern tribes by the Assyrian Empire, the authors of Judges document the raising up of charismatic, violent judges and a king anointed by Samuel, who warned people of violence that would come with centralization of imperial power (93-98).
First and Second Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles present “David as the founder of a God-approved dynasty” (103) and Solomon as a king with administrative skills and wisdom reminiscent of the Egyptian pharaohs (108). Yet, the northern kingdom fell and Judah was threatened by the Assyrian Empire, later became a vassal of Egypt, and was finally destroyed by the Babylonian Empire (121).
In contrast to texts that glorified powerful kings, the prophets “predicted … the consequences of empire-loving policies.” Elijah “tried to persuade Israelites to abandon their infatuation with the gods that had apparently blessed the Assyrian Empire with such overwhelming military success” (126). Amos “suggested restoring the spirit of [David’s] leadership before he began pursuing imperial dreams of dominance and control” (129). Hosea used the metaphor of prostitution for Israel’s idolatry, which “had a lot to do with greed and a desire for wealth and international prestige” (131). The royal-born Isaiah of Jerusalem anticipated a righteous king who “would make…Judah as great as Egypt and Assyria” (134). By contrast, the rural prophet Micah watched as Assyria “destroyed forty-six cities, killed many, and enslaved and deported 200,000 people,” while the king in Jerusalem was able to “survive unscathed…collecting taxes from the country people to support the lavish lifestyle of the royal family…plus the Assyrian army and gods” (135). Zephaniah warned that “gaining the empire’s {Assyria’s) approval requires acceptance of the empire’s gods” (139). “Nahum exalted in the destruction of Ninevah and attributed its astonishing defeat to YHWH…who brings devastation to empires once thought to be invincible” (139). Habakkuk “pointed an accusing finger at Jerusalem’s elite…then he also pointed at Egypt and Babylon…he viewed the same spirit of domination to animate them all” (141). Jeremiah believed that because “the Israelites had lost their way” (147), they would not escape judgment at the hands of the Babylonian Empire (144). Ezekiel taught the exiles that YHWH ruled the skies over Babylon (153). Stories of Daniel spoke of four Hebrew men “saying ‘no’ to empire when it demanded their allegiance” (161). Second Isaiah affirmed that “Justice is what YHWH intends for Earth, which is currently under empire’s domination” (164).
After Persian King Cyrus authorized the Judeans to return and rebuild their temple, Ezra noted that Joshua and Zerubbabel attributed the restoration to “the empire’s authority…not YHWH’s” (172,175); Nehemiah agreed (179). Yet, Third Isaiah pointed forward to the “end of empire” (188). The story of Jonah teaches that “YHWH is also the god of our enemies…” (192), who receive “a merciful response from YHWH to a pagan empire” (193). The prophet Joel anticipated “a great reversal at the end of history when the grip of empire would be broken and YHWH’s justice and peace prevail” (195). Zechariah explained that YHWH’s king would be different from the imperial ruler—“humble and riding on a donkey” (196). The visions of Daniel affirmed that “kingship and dominion…shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom…” (198). Perhaps, the message of the First Testament (as the authors name the Christian Old Testament) regarding empire is best summarized in the psalmist’s words: “Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of [YHWH]” (Psalm 20:7; quoted on p. 216).
Turning to the Second (New) Testament, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus announced: “the empire of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15, quoted on p. 219). Indeed, “the empires of Caesar and of God were not the same thing” (222). The latter is a “new, non-violent way of running the world” (230). Jesus demonstrated by his death and resurrection: “Empires still fear active nonviolence more than armies” (234).
The phrase used in John’s gospel, “’Savior of the world’ (John 4:42) had…imperial connotations” (240). Then, “Acts provides a partial history” of “the community that embodies a nonviolent but assertive alternative to empire” (248). Paul’s letters use “church” (ekklesia) “to refer to the regular meetings of Jesus-followers…; the word had political, not religious connotation” (269). According to Galatians, “Jesus’ purpose…was thus rooted in liberation from existing structures and powers of this world” (271). 1 Thessalonians’ language about the second coming of Jesus “drew from imperial rituals enacted by enthusiastic city residents who would meet the returning emperor and escort him into a city” (273). When Paul deferred to “the rulers of this age” in 1 Corinthians, he “clearly meant the leaders of the Roman Empire” (276). In Philemon, “Paul’s rhetorical shift from ‘slave’ to ‘beloved brother’” was seen by some to be “a powerful subversion of the entire structure of slavery” (283). The language of Colossians reflects common imperial phrases: “Cicero…called the empire ‘the light of the world’ and Nero was commonly called ‘the son of god’” (283). When Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel” in Romans he was using the term that announced the “good news” of “the ascension of a new emperor” (290). The Philippians Paul addressed had been “unusually devoted to the emperor as ‘lord and savior,’ as evidenced by the active imperial cult in the city” (293). The author of Ephesians “wants the ‘rulers and authorities’ (Eph. 3:10) to see [that reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles] is the new political phenomenon that subverts and delegitimizes those who insist domination and violence are necessary for justice and peace to prevail” (301). The “scenes of pain, suffering, blood, destruction” in Revelation “are all about the consequences of the way the empire runs the world” (326).
Overall, Friesen and Stoner read the Bible as “the long effort by worshippers of YHWH to form a political community whose way of organizing and running the world is different from empire’s way” (336). They suggest voicing the biblical prayers quoted at the end of their book as a useful beginning for those who wish to practice living against empire. Moreover, questions for “Reflection and Discussion” at the end of each major section make the book usable for dialogue and interaction in small groups supporting each other in the anti-imperial task.
The biblical overview, which dominates the book’s content, is relevant today. First, the Bible clearly does have political implications for living in the empires of today. Jesus rejected political power to form a community bearing witness to all worldly empires. God’s kingdom comes by divine intervention, not through political solutions: Republican or Democrat; conservative, focusing on a great past that never was, or liberal, conceiving of an unattainable progressive future. Our hope is in the faithfulness of Jesus on the cross to overcome all powers and authorities and establish the kingdom of God.
Indeed, followers of Jesus’ resist the “empires” of this world. Aspiring American “emperors” say “Only I can make America great again” or “Build on what made America great.” Those of us who believe Jesus is Lord reject both claims.
Stoner’s and Friesen’s writing does have shortcomings. There are more typos than one would expect. The use of “First Testament” and “Second Testament” is distracting. The authors find the political in more places than biblical authors may have intended (e.g., 276-277). They affirm intense persecution under Emperor Domitian (299), which has been questioned by recent scholarship.
The book will be off-putting to some, because of the position taken on a variety of critical issues related to the reliability of the biblical text. While there are valid reasons for accepting these findings of biblical research, unnecessary attention to them diverts from the book’s important message. Perhaps, the overall shortcoming is that there is much material that does not relate directly to empire; this could be eliminated to make the book shorter, more focused, and, therefore, more accessible to the reader.
Despite these shortcomings, the authors’ conclusion is certainly valid: the task of readers of the Bible is “simply to read and ‘listen’ to the author’s testimony” (21). Indeed, Friesen and Stoner make the Bible relevant to twenty-first century empires. We can all benefit from the message of this volume on the dangers of “empire.”