In post #1 in this series, I introduced the topic of allegiance to Christ as King.Post #2 was on allegiance and grace, referencing primarily Paul and the Gift by Prof. John M. G. Barclay. Post #3 focused on allegiance and faith, in which we referenced Matthew W. Bates’s Gospel Allegiance. We now begin post #4.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with BAPTISM? Theologian: R. Alan Streett (info on Amazon) Book: Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (Wipf & Stock, 2018), 190 pages (more)
First—let’s look at two New Testament verses highlighting Jesus Christ as King of kings:
1 Timothy 6:15– which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Revelation 17:14– They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
Now let’s consider the main idea of Dr. Streett’s book on the sacrament of baptism in the early church, Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance. Here it is:
When the early apostles travelled across the Empire and preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, calling on their listeners to repent, be baptized, and pledge their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, they challenged imperial Rome’s assertion that it alone had a divine right to demand peoples’ loyalty. When viewed in this context, we can understand why baptism might be considered a subversive act.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 22). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
According to Dr. Streett, baptism in the early church was an adult decision involving no small degree of risk, impacting much more than the spiritual, internal life of the believer. Baptism was a public statement of allegiance to “the Christ” with lifelong external, significance. It impacted the social, political, and economic areas of life for believers and for the local church. It could mean rejection, loss, shame, persecution, and sometimes martyrdom.
Streett makes his case from numerous Scriptures and from many writings from the time of the Roman Empire. It appears likely that in the early church (before Christianity was legalized by Constantine around 313 A.D.), the sacrament of Christian baptism meant switching allegiance from Caesar to Christ.
Consider the religious cult status of “Caesar Augustus.” He is famously mentioned in Luke 2:1. Dr. Streett writes about the renowned Augustus:
By virtue of being Julius Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus held the most honored position in the Empire. Until Augustus’s reign, only deceased rulers were granted divine status. Not willing to wait for such an acclamation, Augustus claimed for himself the title Divi filius (“Son of God”). . . .
Augustus and all future emperors who succeeded him were given the title “Father of the Fatherland” (Pater Patriae), which implied that the Empire was a big family over which the emperor stood as a father figure who protected, disciplined, and blessed his family members.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (pp. 23–24). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. Streett cites Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, p. 202, and Suetonius, who wrote the biography Augustus as well as Lives of the Caesars.
Augustus was the first Caesar, but he was not the last to be called son of god, or worshipped as divine. So when Paul opens his letter to the church at Rome, saying Jesus “was descended from [King] David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power” (Rom 1:3–4), this was likely seen by many Romans as a tension point relative to the authority of Nero, Rome’s Caesar at the time. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not.
Or consider Jesus calling God his Father (John 5:17–18). And that Jesus teaches his disciples to relate to God as “Father” (Matt 6:9; 23:9). In the social context of the Roman Empire, this also had political implications. Only Eternal God is rightly addressed as the Father who “protected, disciplined, and blessed” his people. According to Streett, Jesus’ message was probably subversive in the Empire because it challenged the so-called divine paternal authority of Tiberius Caesar.
The imperial cult and emperor worship
Dr. Streett cites numerous sources to describe that, “Apart from ‘obstinate Jews and Christians,’ the majority living in the Mediterranean region of the Empire “worshipped at the feet of the emperor” (p. 31). He writes of “the emperor cult” as the “super-glue” cementing together the entire Empire (p. 32). This aligns with our reference (in post #2 in this series): “The emperor was the patron, the benefactor, of his every subject. The subjects, in turn, paid him back for his benefactions with their loyalty; this was the basis of his power. Thus, the empire was a single enormous spider’s web of reciprocal favours.”1
At the time of Jesus, the imperial cult permeated every facet of Roman life and culture. Public events became opportunities to pay homage to the religion of the state. Special days were set aside to honor imperial Rome and its leaders. The emperor’s birthday, which marked the beginning of the Roman New Year, was such an occasion. Others included anniversaries of great victories at sea and on land, celebrations to remember deceased rulers and heroes, attendance at sporting events, and national feast days. Banquets were eaten in Caesar’s name where people expressed piety (eusebia) and devotion, and renewed their commitment to the emperor and Rome.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 32). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Streett’s last chapter gives special attention to the book of Revelation. It is in this book that the Bible’s message is most subversive relative to the Empire. Streett calls Revelation “the most overtly anti-imperial book” in the New Testament (p. 154). A crystal clear expression of this anti-imperial message is found in Rev 1:5 where Jesus is described as “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The mentions of “Babylon” in Revelation (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2; 18:10; 18:21) are veiled references to the Roman Empire. The church of the Lord Jesus and Christ himself, the Lamb of God, are in conflict with the empire (Babylon).
New Testament scholar Dean Fleming affirms this view: “Whatever Revelation might tell us about future events related to the return of Christ, it was not written in the first place to twenty-first-century people. First and foremost the Apocalypse was intended to be a ‘word on target’ for seven churches in Asia Minor—churches that were struggling with what it meant to live Christianly in a world dominated by an empire that claimed ultimate allegiance for itself.2
Conclusion: The early church was sometimes in a stance of resistance against the evils of the Empire, and baptism was a sacrament marking this stance by publicly signaling allegiance to Jesus “the Christ.”
It was into a socio-political environment of emperor worship (Caesar Augustus worshipped as son of god) that Jesus was born (Luke 2:1).
It was during the rule of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is also when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, that John the Baptist began his preparatory ministry of calling for repentance, and Jesus conducted his three-year ministry.
It was in a Roman court with Pontius Pilate presiding (John 19:12–15), that Jesus was convicted of sedition (albeit cynically). “We have no king but Caesar,” said the chief priests (John 19:15)—and this settled it for Pilate. Jesus: sentenced to death by crucifixion, mocked with a sign that read, “King of the Jews.”
And it was inside this socio-political environment that Luke wrote the book of Acts. He records the birth and early growth of the church of the Lord Jesus, calling people everywhere to repent and give pistis (pledge allegiance) to “the Christ” for the forgiveness of sins.
Next post: Why specifically was baptism considered an expression of allegiance in the Roman Empire? I will finish my focus on the sacrament of baptism and its meaning in the social context of the Empire—in my next post.
NOTES
J. E. Lendon. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (p. 12). Kindle Edition.
Dean Flemming. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (p. 266). Kindle Edition.
IN MY LAST POST I began exploring the topic of allegiance as a Christian mindset and practice. Specifically, I am discussing the vital importance for believers to give allegiance to Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Savior-King. We are exploring in this series the significance of allegiance in three Christian dynamics: 1) grace, 2) faith, and 3) baptism.
This is the second post in the series. We examine the dynamic of grace as we consider a few brief excerpts from Prof. John M. G. Barclay’s seminal book Paul and the Gift. We will focus on allegiance to Christ and explore a few implications for believers today. NOTE: This post is lengthy; the topic requires a lot of explanation.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with GRACE? Theologian: John M. G. Barclay (bio) Book:Paul and the Gift (Eerdmans, 2015), 656 pages (more)
Perhaps you are new to Prof. Barclay or his book. If so, you can get a sense of the quality and impact of his scholarship here, or in this helpful book review, or in this 25-minute podcast/interview with Prof. Barclay.
A book that took ten years to research and write, Professor Barclay’s Paul and the Gift is considered one of the most significant books on New Testament theology in recent decades. He introduces what he calls the “six perfections” of grace. This means there are different facets of grace, each of which can be perfected or taken to the “nth degree.”
Prof. Barclay names these six “perfections” of grace:
superabundance—how massive, enduring, and eternal is God’s grace,
singularity—the degree to which God is characterized by grace and grace alone,
priority—the sense in which God’s grace as first and before, thus marking God’s freedom to give,
incongruity—the degree to which God gives grace without regard to the worth of recipients,
efficacy—the extent to which grace achieves God’s intentions in those who receive it, and
non-circularity—the degree to which grace is reciprocal; it has “strings attached;” God’s people are obliged to return praise, obedience, allegiance to him.
It is this last of the six “perfections”—non-circularity—that will be the main focus of this blog post. That’s because Barclay contends that Paul’s understanding of grace was not non-circular, but rather, obliging.
In other words, Paul viewed God’s grace as circular or reciprocal. God gives the gift of salvation in Christ to all who believe, although none deserve the gift. Therefore, it is “incongruous.” This was counter-cultural to social norms in the ancient world. At the same time, God expects that those who receive the gift of salvation to return honor and praise, loyalty and obedience—allegiance—to him. Therefore, the gift is reciprocal or circular in nature. This reciprocity was not counter-cultural; it is how grace ‘worked’ in the ancient world.
Understanding patronage to understand grace
To answer the question Why is God’s gift of grace reciprocal?, and before we further explore the writings of Prof. Barclay, we need to answer this question: Why are patronage and grace intertwined in the social context of the Roman Empire? The next few paragraphs borrow material from my book The Global Gospel in the chapter titled “Honor/Shame Dynamic #7: Patronage.”
Here’s a description of patronage from New Testament scholar, David deSilva: “Patronage was a [prevalent] social framework in the ancient Mediterranean basin. Patrons were people with power who could provide goods and services not available to their clients. In return, clients provided loyalty and honor to the patrons. Social inequality characterized these patronal relationships, and exploitation was a common feature of such relationships.” [1]
I want to emphasize two points; the first is this: Patronage is a social dynamic between patron and client characterized by reciprocity. Clients return “loyalty and honor to the patrons,” as deSilva noted. History professor J. E. Lendon adds about the Roman Empire and its emperor: “The emperor was the patron, the benefactor, of his every subject. The subjects, in turn, paid him back for his benefactions with their loyalty; this was the basis of his power. Thus, the empire was a single enormous spider’s web of reciprocal favours.” [2]
The diagram below illustrates this reciprocity or circularity.
Reciprocity in the patron-client relationship. Diagram by Jayson Georges and Werner Mischke, based on dialog from the Patronage Symposium, held at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary, October 2018.
Our second point is this: People of the Greco-Roman world understood that grace (Gk., charis) is at the very center of the patronage dynamic. In fact, according to deSilva, first-century believers understood that “God’s grace (charis) would not have been of a different kind than the grace with which they were already familiar; it would have been understood as different only in quality and degree.”[3]
There was a distinct honor code about how to give and receive. The benefactor was to be wise, not self-serving. Their gifts were to be given only to honorable people—and thus, examples of excellent stewardship. Reciprocally, the client was to show proper gratitude and honor to the benefactor or patron.
According to the ancient writer Seneca, the reciprocal relationship between patron and client was to be characterized by “three graces”:
Some would have it appear that there is one [grace] for bestowing a benefit, one for receiving it, and the third for returning it; others hold that there are three classes of benefactors—those who receive benefits, those who return them, and those who receive and return them at the same time.
As quoted in deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity, 106.
Seneca compared these three “graces” of giving, receiving, and returning favor to three sisters who dance “hand in hand … in a ring which returns upon itself.” Speaking of the word grace or charis, deSilva says it “encapsulated the entire ethos of the relationship.”
Grace at the center of the patron-client relationship.In the Roman Empire, grace (Gk., charis)was understood to be at the crux of the social practice of patronage. Diagram from Werner Mischke, The Global Gospel, Fig. 2.17, p 126.
So the social practice of patronage and benefaction would have related to the love and grace of God. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Even the giving of God’s Son would have been seen in the light of patronage. A highly honored, magnificent Benefactor is providing a great blessing—the gift of his own Son to many people. Note: this helpful video by New Testament scholar David deSilva makes the point crystal clear—that grace and patronage were integrally relatedin the Roman Empire.
Is allegiance to “the Christ” integral to grace?
In the Roman Empire, clients of patrons—those who received gifts—were obligated to return honor, loyalty, allegiance—to the patron. Accordingly, Barclay frequently uses the word allegiance in his book (55 times, a few examples below) as well as the word loyalty (26 times) to describe the way believers ought to live their lives in following Christ.
Below I summarize in three points the view of Barclay who contends that Paul understood divine grace as being reciprocal:
God the divine Patron gives salvation by grace through Christ without regard to any social capital, moral achievement, or any measure of worth on the part of the recipient (Eph 2:8–9 is an example of this). God’s grace is infinitely greater than what God’s people can ever return to him.
At the same time, this grace has strings attached. The Patron’s clients are receivers of God’s gift. And as believers in Christ they have dignifying obligations to reciprocate to their Patron by living an honorable life of good works in praise to God. (I see Eph 2:10 as one example of this).
Therefore, one of the qualities of God’s grace is its circularity or reciprocity. This is contrary to the view that some Christians hold—that grace is non-circular. (The view that grace is non-circular holds that once a person is saved by grace, there are zero additional obligations. Allegiance to “the Christ” is optional for believers, not required.)
Below are a few excerpts from Paul and the Gift. Following each excerpt I make brief comments about how this applies or what it means.
Excerpts from Barclay’s Paul and the Gift highlighting allegiance to the Christ
The sublime glory of belonging to Christ—this is the heart of Apostle Paul’s entire project. But belonging to Christ also obliges Christians to a purpose—a new humanity marked by counter-cultural love and diversity.
Commenting on Gal 5:13 and the “freedom” of believers to, by love serve other believers, Prof. Barclay writes:
… what counts is allegiance to Christ and adherence to the Spirit. Paul’s paradoxical interpretation of freedom as slavery (“for freedom you have been called … through love be slaves of one another,” 5:13) recalls the opening statement of 1:10–11: Paul is free from human criteria of value (“seeking to please human beings”) because he is a slave of Christ (1:10). For Paul, “freedom” is not autonomy but the product of an allegiance that breaks the power of previously taken-for-granted (and now “alien”) norms. He is dead to the regime of the Law, since his life is derived from and governed by the Christ-event: “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (2:19–20). All other criteria of value have been discounted by the superordinate worth of belonging to Christ.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 428-429). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: The key to this paragraph is the last sentence: “All other criteria of value have been discounted by the superordinate worth of belonging to Christ.” This reminds me of Paul’s words “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3:8). Because of this profound honor in knowing Christ, there is of necessity a transformation of value regarding one’s social network. Since believers belong to the incredibly worthy Christ they also belong to the family of believers. And all Christians have identities transformed by relationship with the incredibly worthy Christ.
The phrase “criteria of value” refers to the ways that people in all cultures create social hierarchies: Greek elites versus barbarian … free versus slave … insiders versus outsiders … men versus women … Jew versus Gentile … upper class, middle class, lower class … clean versus unclean … one political tribe versus another … literate or non-literate … black versus white, etc. According to Barclay, Paul is saying that any and all criteria of social value is “discounted” because knowing Christ, whose honor and worth is infinite, makes it not just possible—but vital—to have intimate fellowship with all brothers or sisters in Christ. And the emphasis is on all—without regard to social worth being higher or lower, better our worse. In relation to the all-honorable, all-glorious Christ, all believers have honorable insider status.
In is commentary on Galatians 1:6–12 , Barclay writes:
… Paul eschews crowd-pleasing, but the “crowd” whose opinion he dismisses is not the uneducated populace, but humanity as a whole: his arguments do not count for much among human beings, but they count before God. In his rhetoric, as in his practice, Paul’s allegiance is to Christ: “if I were still pleasing human beings, I would not be a slave of Christ” (Gal 1:10). Although Paul will celebrate “the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:5; 5:1), it is clear from this early declaration of “slavery” that what he means by freedom is the consequence of an allegiance to norms newly constituted in Christ.
The “good news” thus realigns and recalibrates Paul’s loyalties: announcing the incongruous gift enacted in Christ, he is at odds with the normative conventions that govern human systems of value. Hence the emphatic statement of (Gal 1:11): “I want you to know that the good news announced by me is not in accord with human norms” (οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον). This negation is of central significance to the theology of the letter. It signals a relation of misfit, even contradiction, between the “good news” and the typical structures of human thought and behavior.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 355-356). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: The key sentence above is this: “The ‘good news’ thus realigns and recalibrates Paul’s loyalties: announcing the incongruous gift enacted in Christ, he is at odds with the normative conventions that govern human systems of value.” Because Paul’s allegiance is to Christ and his gospel, there is a corresponding recalibration of who and what is worthy. The gospel is not merely that persons can have eternal life by believing Jesus died for their sins. The gospel creates a new humanity (Eph 2:15), a new egalitarian community free of traditional cultural divisions and hierarchies (Gal 3:28–29)—all because of one earth-shattering reality: They are in “the Christ,” they have the astounding honor of being in God’s ancient-and-cosmic story of promise-and-blessing.
The two sentences below from are also from Prof. Barclay’s commentary on the first chapter of Galatians.
As a believer, Paul is a “Jew” who (in his terms) no longer remains “in Judaism”: his ethnicity has not been renounced but subsumed within an identity and an allegiance governed by the event of Christ (cf. Gal 2:19–21). His “ancestral traditions” no longer constitute his salient currency of worth.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 359–360). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments: I love this—“his ethnicity has not been renounced but subsumed within an identity and an allegiance governed by the event of Christ.” For Paul, his Jewishness ethnically and religiously had been his core identity before Christ. But Christ intervened. (“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”) He is still a Jew. But Paul’s core identity has been forever altered. This Jewish part of Paul’s life was relativized—it was “subsumed”—absorbed into the life of King Jesus through “the Christ-event” (Gal 1:20).
These sentences are from Prof. Barclay’s commentary on Galatians 3:26–29:
Neither ethnic nor gender identity could be simply removed, and in the eyes of the [Roman] law everyone counted as either “free” or “slave” (or “freed”). Paul and Peter remained Jews (Gal 2:15; cf. Titus, a “Greek,” Gal 2:3), and Paul was still identifiably masculine and free. What is altered, however, is the evaluative freight carried by these labels, the encoded distinctions of superiority and inferiority. In common solidarity with Christ, baptized believers are enabled and required to view each other without regard to these influential classifications of worth. Jewish believers should not withdraw from shared meals with non-Jews on the basis of their different, “inferior,” ethnicity (Gal 2:11–14). Slaves should not be disdained as “mere slaves,” since their worth as “siblings” is established in Christ (Phlm 16). What now counts for worth is only one’s status in Christ, and the consistency of one’s allegiance to him.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (p. 397). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
My comments:For Paul, allegiance to Christ and his gospel of grace “enabled and required” believers to have community with other believers who would normally be from social groups unlike their own. Humans are generally drawn to people like themselves, and tend to avoid being with people who are “other.” But Christians have something in common that bridges those normally entrenched social divides: the astounding incongruity of God’s grace to every Christian regardless of nationality, morality, social status, race, wealth, education, or other measure of worth.
In Prof. Barclay’s commentary on Romans (Section IV of Paul and the Gift), one chapter is devoted to Romans 11. On page 558 he writes:
Finally, as the preceding and following chapters make clear (e.g., Rom 6:1–23; 12:1–3), Paul’s radical emphasis on the incongruity of grace by no means implies its non-circularity: the following appeal “by the mercies of God” (12:1) may be taken to indicate that grace has “strings attached.” But the absence or lesser significance of these other perfections does not in the least diminish the radicality of the one perfection that is central to these chapters; as we have noted, the various perfections of grace are not a “package deal” (see above, chapter 2). What matters in Romans 9–11, as throughout this letter, is that God’s grace or mercy is operative without regard to worth. It is because this is the core of Israel’s identity and history that it is also the hope for the salvation of the world.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (p. 558). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Relative to grace being “with strings attached,” Prof. Barclay adds the following in his Conclusion (Chapter 18):
Thus, throughout this book, we have been suspicious of the modern (Western) ideal of the “pure” gift, which is supposedly given without strings attached. We have been able to make sense of the fact that a gift can be unconditioned (free of prior conditions regarding the recipient) without also being unconditional (free of expectations that the recipient will offer some “return”). Paul has provided a parade example of this phenomenon, since he simultaneously emphasizes the incongruity of grace and the expectation that those who are “under grace” (and wholly refashioned by it) will be reoriented in the “obedience of faith.” What has seemed in the modern world a paradoxical phenomenon—that a “free” gift can also be obliging—is entirely comprehensible in ancient terms.
Barclay, John M. G.. Paul and the Gift (pp. 562–563). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Summary: What does allegiance have to do with GRACE? Apparently, in the ancient world, grace and allegiance was understood as a package deal. You receive undeservedly a magnificent gift (Gk., charis) from a great Patron; you return to the Patron your praise, obedience, loyalty, allegiance. This allegiance is embodied individually and corporately, physically and socially in the cultivation of a new humanity marked by counter-cultural love and diversity.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual [reasonable] worship. (Romans 12:1 ESV)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8–10 ESV)
“I pledge allegiance to the Christ.” In the early church, to confess Jesus as Lord could mean switching allegiance from Caesar to Christ; this was often subversive. What does it mean in your community to make this confession?
Next post: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH?Click here to go to the next post in this series.
NOTES:
David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 96. DeSilva’s two chapters on patronage are titled “Patronage & Reciprocity” and “Patronage & Grace in the New Testament.” DeSilva describes in detail how the practice of patronage in the Roman Empire informed the early church’s understanding of the gift of God’s grace in Christ.
J. E. Lendon. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (p. 12). Kindle Edition.
I grew up in America. Each and every morning at the beginning of the school day, from Kindergarten through 12th Grade, I joined my classmates by putting my right hand over my heart and saying “the pledge.”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
For patriotic Americans, to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America is as natural as breathing. It’s just something we do. For children in school (especially), it’s obvious and automatic. Of course, it is. Liberty and justice for all are values worth defending. Loyalty to our republic and its Constitution is noble and good.
Dictionary.com defines “allegiance” as:
1) the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign; 2) loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
In pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States, Americans are pledging loyalty to America and the government by which they are its citizens.
For me, allegiance is a word that all my life has been linked to being “American.” But the word allegiance also relates to an even more fundamental part of my identity: “Christian.”
“Allegiance” is a thoroughly Christian term
I intend to show in this series of blog posts that allegiance is vital for followers of Jesus. All believers are called to the mindset-and-behavior of loyalty to Christ as King.
In the social world of the early church and Roman Empire, allegiance and loyalty to Caesar included being a regular participant in the “emperor cult.” Paying homage to the emperor as a “son of God” was part of being a citizen of the Roman Empire. Giving allegiance to Jesus the Christ as a citizen of his kingdom was thus equivalent to denying allegiance to Caesar.
In the early church, allegiance was expressed in word and deed, beliefs and practices:
Allegiance was a key aspect of grace (Gk. charis).
Allegiance was often synonymous with faith (Gk. pistis).
Givingallegiance to Jesus the Christ—instead of Caesar the Emperor—was a central feature of baptism(Gk. baptismatos).
Grace, faith, and baptism—each of these dynamics point to the vital role of allegiance on the part of believers. Becoming Christian, living as followers of King Jesus, put believers into a lifestyle that was inherently subversive. Living out the gospel with the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5) and the values of Jesus meant active resistance (though peaceful) to the values of Caesar and Rome. As a result 1) believers often suffered exclusion socially, politically, economically, and 2) the church nevertheless grew by leaps and bounds.
For each of the three dynamics (grace, faith, baptism) I refer below to a different theologian and a book authored by that theologian. Although each theologian’s book covers a different topic, they all have this in common: They describe how the dynamic (whether grace, faith, or baptism) was understood in the social context of the early church and Roman Empire.
Three dynamics, three theologians, three books
GRACE John M. G. Barclay (bio) Paul and the Gift (Eerdmans, 2015), 656 pages (more)
FAITH Matthew W. Bates (bio) Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ(Brazos, 2019), 272 pages (more)
BAPTISM R. Alan Streett (bio) Caesar and the Sacrament Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (Wipf & Stock, 2018), 190 pages (more)
I will devote one blog post to each of these books and share a summary about what they say concerning our allegiance as believers to “the Christ.”
Christ as “the good king”
I want to say a few things about the title of this series: “I pledge allegiance to ‘the Christ.’”
As believers, we often refer to our Savior as Jesus Christ. We hear preachers use the name Jesus Christ a lot more often than Jesus, the Christ.
But we are mistaken to think that Jesus is our Savior’s first name and Christ is his last name. Werner Mischke is my name. Mischke is my last name or family name. But “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. Most believers already know this, but it is worth revisiting the point.
Christ is not a proper name or family name. It is a title, an honorific title signifying Jesus as Messiah-King.
Thus, while Paul does not refer to Christ as king, his abundant use of the honorific “Messiah” [Gk., Christos] may indicate that he thinks of Jesus as the ideal king or ruler. Especially significant in this regard is Matthew V. Novenson’s recent monograph Christ among the Messiahs, in which he demonstrates that Paul’s use of Χριστός [Gk., Christos]actually conforms quite closely to common uses of honorifics in the ancient world. Thus, for Paul Χριστός is not a proper name but rather an honorific such as Seleucus the Victor or Judah Maccabee that can be used in combination with an individual’s proper name or can stand in for a proper name.
Jipp, Joshua W.. Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Fortress Press. Kindle Edition. Location 96.
Jipp argues that “Paul uses royal language to present Christ as ‘the good king.’” He surveys literature from the time of the Roman Empire describing the character and qualities of the good king. Jipp then demonstrates how the language from these extra-biblical sources overlaps in numerous ways with how Paul describes Jesus as “the Christ.” Compared to other literature describing the good king, Paul’s writing articulates Jesus as the true eternal good king. Jipp discusses:
The good king and law: Gal 5–6; Rom 13–15; 1 Cor 9
Hymning to the good king: Col 1:15–20
The good king enthroned: Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 15:20–28
In other words, Christos is a title with royal meaning. Jesus is the long-awaited Deliverer-Messiah, the Anointed One,theKing of kings—“the Christ.”
The phrase “the Christ” is common in the New Testament
A search of “the Christ” in the online English Standard Version Bible (ESV) yields 49 occurrences. It is worth scanning these verses to observe just how much regal honorific emphasis New Testament authors give to Jesus through the title Christos.
Here is a sampling of ten verses from just the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 1:17– So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
Matthew 2:4– and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
Matthew 11:2– Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples
Matthew 16:16– Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 16:20– Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Matthew 22:42– saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
Matthew 23:10– Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.
Matthew 24:5– For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.
Matthew 24:23– Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 26:63– But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Christ is King. The word “Christ” has a royal meaning. This is why, as I have color-coded keywords in my Bible, I always highlight the word Christ in orange. It quickly helps me see just how often the honorific majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ is being heralded in the books of the New Testament.
In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (ESV), the word Christ appears 45 times, the word Lord, 11 times.
Remember the main point we are exploring in this series of posts: Jesus is our Savior and King. As believers, we owe him our loyalty and allegiance. “I pledge allegiance to the Christ.”
Next post: I will focus on John M. G. Barclay’s Paul and the Gift. We will examine one important aspect of his groundbreaking scholarship. How is allegiance is a part of a biblical understanding and practice of GRACE? To go to the next post, click here.
This blog post is an excerpt from chapter 3.5 of my book, The Global Gospel, pages 242–244. This constitutes a summary I wrote (admittedly, an exceedingly brief summary) of Jackson Wu’s Saving God’s Face.[1] This excerpt is from Section 3 of The Global Gospel, in which I examine how various honor-shame dynamics overlap and intersect with verses about the atonement of Christ and salvation.
Atonement and the “concept of face”
One may rightly ask: Where does the atonement—the finished work of Christ on the cross, followed by his resurrection—intersect with the concept of face? It is found in the curious phrase, “saving God’s face.” I am indebted to Jackson Wu for the contours of this argument (especially points 4 and 5), which is put forward below.
God’s glory is ultimate.All creation is for the display of his glory (Ps 19:1). The honor and glory of God is both the genesis and final reality of the universe. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
God’s sorrow in humanity’s sin. The world God made was good, but Adam and Eve were tempted by the dark devious destroyer and sinned (Gen 1–3). Thus, the world was cursed under Adam’s sin, and God was sorrowful (Gen 6:7). Sin is not only the violation of God’s laws. It is ultimately the dishonoring of God’s Person (Rom 1:21–26; 2:23). Sin is falling short of an ethical standard, but much more than that, sin is falling short of the glory and honor of God (Rom 3:23).
God’s promise through God’s family to bless all peoples. God promised Abraham, “I will bless you and make your name great” (Gen 12:2) and “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). This constitutes God’s plan—to reverse the curse of sin and restore his blessing on all humanity through Abraham’s offspring. “Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (Gal 3:6) apart from the righteous works of the law.
God’s Son makes good on God’s promise for all peoples.Jesus Christ is the offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He died on the cross to redeem us from our sins (Gal 3:13). Moreover, Jesus Christ became “a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:13–14). This opened the “door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27) so that all peoples—all tribes and tongues and nations—could receive the honor of joining God’s family-on-mission and experience eternal life.
God’s “face” saved for God’s glory in all creation.In John 12, Jesus was praying to the Father. His soul was filled with fathomless sorrow about enduring the coming events—arrest, mocking, flogging and torture, humiliating crucifixion to bear the sins of the world, separation and rejection from the Father: “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again” (John 12:27–28).
When Jesus prays, “Father, glorify your name,” he is essentially saying, Father, vindicate your honor! Save your “face”!
Why would the death and resurrection of Christ vindicate God’s honor? Because it is the only way that God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth could have come true. God’s credibility hinged on a means for all peoples to be blessed and redeemed. Yes, God gave the law to Moses and his people; yes, the law revealed God’s righteousness and holiness; but the law was lifeless in that it was totally unable to save (Rom 8:2–3).
There was only one way that God’s plan to bless all families—to reverse the curse among all peoples—could be guaranteed: through a heart-captivating faith that individuals and peoples everywhere would place in the name, honor, and finished work of Jesus Christ, a faith that transcends culture.
With regard to ethnicity this faith needed to be neutral, accessible to and affirming of all peoples. But with regard to ethics, this faith needed to be superior; that is, it needed to have the ability to truly transform people from the inside out, conforming them to the righteousness of the Son of God. Therefore, this faith would be a fulfillment of the covenant promise God gave to his people through Abraham (Gen 12:1–3), but the faith would be untethered from the works of the law specific to Jewish ethnicity and culture, such as circumcision. Apostle Paul made this clear:
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Rom 4:16). (Emphasis mine.)
Jackson Wu explains:
Christ’s atonement centrally concerns the honor of God and the shame of man. Salvation preserves God’s honor and takes away human shame. God keeps his promises made in the OT, foremost to Abraham. Jesus’ death therefore vindicates God’s name. Therefore, God’s people will not be put to shame. Christ perfectly honored the Father, who then reckons worthy of honor all who, by faith, are united to Christ. … Jesus is a substitute in that he pays the honor-debt and the life-debt owed by sinful creatures.[2]
Consider this: Thousands of peoples in our world have “saving face” as a vital social dynamic in their culture. How valuable would it be to share with them a gospel framework using the honor-shame language and concept of “face”?
1. Jackson Wu: Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame. EMS Dissertation Series (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2012). 2. Ibid., p. 219.
I highly recommend, first of all, that you read the recent blog post at HonorShame.com: “The meaning of Romans 3:23”. The author‘s explanation of this often-quoted verse brings out the honor-shame dynamics in the context of Romans 1–3.
The author points to the fact that Romans 3:23 speaks to the sinfulness of peoples (Jews and Gentiles)—more than to the general sin of individual persons. The blog post provides helpful background information for my blog post below.
For the sake of convenience, a key paragraph from the HonorShame.com blog is provided below. (Remember, this is about the verse, Romans 3:23—“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”)
Simply put, all does not mean “every single, individual person.” Rather, all means “both Jews and Gentiles,” or “every ethnicity.” Or most succinctly, it means “all peoples,” instead of “all people.” The primary categories in Romans 1-3 are groups, not individuals. Romans addresses the relationship between two groups of people. Group A consists of ethnic Israelites, “the circumcised,” “the Jews,” “those under the nomos/Torah.” Group B is the Gentiles, “the uncircumcised, “the Greeks,” “those without nomos/Torah. So, when Paul says “all” he has in mind both of these groups—Jews and Gentiles. The use in Romans 3:23 means “all peoples” more than “every individual.”[1]
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, the doctrine of justification by faith is tethered to the global mission of God—the blessing of salvation for all peoples. We’ll look at two passages in Paul’s letter to the church at Rome—Romans 3:28–30 and Romans 4:16–18, plus Galatians 3:7–9. All of these passages deal with justification by faith and the all-peoples mission of God.
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Explicit and positive
We start with the obvious. The verses contain a truth that is both explicit and positive concerning the all-peoples emphasis. God will justify persons from among both Jews (the circumcised) and Gentiles (the uncircumcised). Together, this represents all the peoples of the earth. God will bless all peoples. No people group is excluded from God’s blessing. It connects with God’s original promise to Abraham to bless all the peoples of the earth through his family (Gen 12:3, 15:5, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14).
To emphasize the radical nature of God’s gift-of-salvation-offered-to-all-peoples, Apostle Paul asks: “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” (Paul is identifying the default Jewish attitude that God belongs to theJews only—the basis for Jewish “boasting”.)
Then Paul answers, “Yes, of Gentiles also”. Concerning this answer, Robert Jewett writes:
Paul contends that the relationship of the “Gentiles” and the “Jews” to God is now exactly the same … God is the God of both ethnic groups. The revolutionary equality of all nations before God that flows from the Christ event is emphatically stated by Paul’s response to the interlocutor’s question: ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν (“Yes, [God] also [belongs to] Gentiles).[2]
Note well the explicit-positive principle: All nations are equal before God. It is a revolutionary idea. Paul was articulating a Christ-centered gospel which was utterly fresh—a brilliant, positive hope in his world of the Roman Empire. It challenged the status quo of empire-adoring Romans … of ethnically proud Jews … and of culturally elitist Greeks. Can you hear this gospel speaking to our world as well?
Implicit and negative
And now, the not-as-obvious. There is an all-peoples emphasis in Romans 3:28–30 that is more implicitand negative. It is implicit in the phrase, “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”. Jewett, commenting on Rom 3:28, writes:
God’s granting of righteousness through faith in the crucified Christ counters the seemingly universal tendency to claim honor on the basis of performance or social status. It eliminates claims of cultural or ethnic superiority.[3]
In the book Saving God’s Face, Jackson Wu also addresses the ethnic issues of Jew and Gentile in the doctrine of justification by faith as taught in Romans and Galatians. After a lengthy nuanced discussion covering various perspectives, Wu concludes:
“[T]his gospel message (Gal 3:8) inherently necessitates forsaking the primacy of ethnic identity. The gospel directly challenges ethnocentrism; it is no mere corollary or application.[4]
Wow. “The gospel directly challenges ethnocentrism; it is no mere corollary or application.” Do you hear the force of these words? Ethnic, tribal or national identity is to be secondary to the believer’s primary identity as citizen in God’s kingdom, family member in the household of God (Eph 2:19). I believe it is this, our most-honorable identity in Christ, that subverts ethnocentrism and is part of the core of the gospel.
What is the implicit and negative all-peoples emphasis? It is that faith in the crucified Christ “directly challenges ethnocentrism” and “eliminates claims of cultural or ethnic superiority”. Faith in the crucified Christ necessitates forsaking ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, cultural elitism, racism—this is what we are to negate through the gospel.
It includes and excludes
Of course, the gift of salvation in Christ includes the personal gain of eternal life and the hope of heaven. But what if we embraced a fuller meaning of justification-by-faith in Rom 3:28–30 as described above? If we did, the gift of salvation might profoundly impact the believer’s relational world when it excludes from the believer—attitudes of cultural, national, tribal, or ethnic superiority.
An audacious thought: Could this all-nations, global gospel have prevented the 1994 genocide in Rwanda when a majority of the nation was considered Christian? Could this all-nations, global gospel have a profound impact today in America—in our deeply polarized social and political climate?
Every expression of elitism, racism, and nationalism will one day fall in submission to the Lordship of Christ. This is part of a gospel expressly designed by God to bless all the peoples of the earth.
Conclusion:Could it be that the Western, individualistic legal-framework gospel emphasizes personal conscience and individual conversion—while at the same time, it unduly marginalizes the relational, social significance of the all-peoples, all-ethnicities gospel? Is this because in Western theology, the common understanding of justification by faith is missing the ethnic, relational, or social dimension of what Apostle Paul intended?
Next post: Part two—Romans 4:16–18 and Galatians 3:7–9
FOOTNOTES
1. Robert Jewett confirms this exegesis: “To fall short is an honor issue and it resonates with the competition for honor within and between groups in the Greco-Roman world. . . . Despite the claims of Jews and Greeks to surpass each other in honor and despite their typical claims that the other groups are shameful because of their lack of wisdom or moral conformity, Paul’s claim is that all fall short of the transcendent standard of honor.” In Jewett: Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 280. 2. Ibid., 299. 3. Ibid., 298. 4. Jackson Wu: Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame (EMS Dissertation Series), (Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2013), 276–7.
The doctrine of justification by faith comes primarily from Apostle Paul’s letters—to the “Romans” and to the “Galatians”.
Over the past several months, I have been reading Romans in my devotional time. I have come to believe that an awareness of honor-shame dynamics may give added clarity to the Bible’s meaning about justification.
So I am finally returning to my blog with a series of posts on justification by faith.
For the purpose of establishing a baseline of understanding about justification by faith, let‘s begin with two quotes from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
A right understanding of justification is absolutely crucial to the whole Christian faith. Once Martin Luther realized the truth of justification by faith alone, he became a Christian and overflowed with the new-found joy of the gospel. The primary issue in the Protestant Reformation was a dispute with the Roman Catholic Church over justification. If we are to safeguard the truth of the gospel for future generations, we must understand the truth of justification. Even today, a true view of justification is the dividing line between the biblical gospel of salvation by faith alone and all false gospels of salvation based on good works. [1]
Just what is justification? We may define it as follows: Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight.[2]
Lutheran theologians came to view justification as “the article by which the church stands or falls.” Philip Schaff calls justification by faith the “material principle” of the Reformation and the sum of the gospel. It is essentially the retrieval of Paul’s doctrine that God declares us righteous on the merits of Christ alone through faith alone. … What we can say is that Paul is addressing not a Jewish legalism narrowly conceived but the more radical and widespread tendency of sinners to justify themselves, either morally or intellectually.[3]
Justification by faith is “absolutely crucial to the whole Christian faith” … “the article by which the church stands or falls” … the “material principle” of the Protestant Reformation … “the sum of the gospel”.
What I want to explore it this: Will an awareness of honor-shame dynamics in various Scripture passages concerning justification help us gain even more respect for this great doctrine—and deepen our motivation for love and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ?
Below is a list of topics I plan write about in the coming weeks. By God’s grace I’ll write one post for each of the twelve topics concerning justification by faith. In each post I will highlight a passage of Scripture that features the word “justification”, “justify”, or “justified”—and then apply the hermeneutical key of honor-shame to hopefully shed some added light on its meaning.
Justification by faith is God’s means of salvation—in part to “exclude boasting” before God on the part of all humanity (Rom 3:23–27).
Justification by faith is central to the honorific mission of God to bless all the peoples of the earth (Rom 3:29–30; Rom 4:16–18).
Justification by faith relativizes the privileged status of “the circumcised”—the Jews (Rom 3:30).
Justification by faith makes possible the elevated honor status of Gentiles by being included in the people of God (Rom 3:30; cf: Eph 2:19).
Justification by faith makes possible the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham—to bless all the peoples of the earth, thus preserving God’s honor and glorious reputation (Gen 12:1–3; John 12:27–28; Rom 4:16).
Justification by faith entitles the sinner to the royal honorific blessing—like King David himself—of having sins and iniquities forgiven (Rom 4:1–8).
Justification by faith places the believer into the honorific family lineage of ancient Abraham, our “father” in the faith—with whom we are co-heirs (Rom 4:9-25, Gal 3:1–29).
Justification by faith glorifies God (Rom 4:20), while exposing all human honor claims as false glory.
Justification by faith places us into the honorific status of peace with God, thus honorific access to God—through the reconciling work of the regal Lord, the Messiah-King, our Savior Jesus (Rom 5:1–2).
Justification by faith gives believers a new source of honor in Christ, and therefore a new present and future glory—for the honorific practice of “boasting” in God (Rom 5:1–11, esp. v. 2, 3, 11).
Justification by faith is the way that grace reigns in eternal life over sin and death (Rom 5:12–21).
Justification by faith is God’s way for believers to have their longing for honor and glory satisfied in Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 8:12–30)—–“provided we suffer with him” (Rom 8:17).
Justification by faith—indeed, it is a glorious and honorific doctrine.
I look forward to writing about justification by faith in the light of the Bible’s honor-shame dynamics. I anticipate learning much. May healthy conversations arise from our exploration.
1. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 722). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
3. Vanhoozer, Kevin J.. Biblical Authority after Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Kindle Locations 2145–2153). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. For the phrase, “the article by which the church stands or falls”, Vanhoozer cites Johann Heinrich Alsted’s Theologia scholastica didacta (Hanover, 1618). Vanhoozer also cites Philip Schaaf’s Principle of Protestantism, 80.
This is the third in a series about honor and shame in the book of Genesis. You’ll benefit from reading this in your browser.
“One of the greatest causes of poverty in the world is based on a lie—the lie that men are superior to women.” [1] –Darrow Miller
Other than the serpent’s original deception (Gen 3:1–5) that led to the Fall of humanity, what lie has caused more oppression and trauma in the world?
What lie has caused more tears?
What lie has led to more pain than this? …
“Men are superior to women.”
This was not God’s intent when he created humanity. Observe Genesis 1:26–28:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
From this text we will examine three truths: 1) Humanity is made in God’s regal image. 2) The regal image of God is both male and female. 3) The Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:28) is a regal function fulfilled by man and woman together.
1) Humanity is made in God’s regal image
First, humanity was made in God’s image—the Latin phrase is imago Dei.This speaks of the inherent regal dignity—the supreme value and honor—of all humanity. Like animals, humans are created by God. But unlike animals, humans bear God’s “image” in ways that mere animals do not—possessing a combination of qualities such as as morality, glory, spirituality, personality, and creativity—in conjunction with an eternal soul.
Keep in mind, God is not merely an impersonal Creator—an abstract “force”. God is the Almighty King of Creation (Ps 93:1; Ps 95:3, 6; Ps 96:10–13; Ps 97:1).
Therefore, to be made in God’s image implies that all humanity is imbued with regal honor. According to the Bible, we all possess royal blood—regardless of our wealth or poverty, family name, social status, racial heritage, ethnic or national origin, level of education, or position in society. But due to the Fall and the effects of sin, we have lost and defiled our original regal identity.
This regal dimension of the image of God—imago Dei—is made even more clear when we consider the context of the Ancient Near East. John Walton writes:
The image of God as an Old Testament concept can be be understood in four categories. It pertains to the role and function that God has given humanity (found for example in “subdue” and “rule,” (Gen 1:28), to the identity that he has bequeathed on us (i.e., it is by definition, who we are as human beings), and to the way that we serve as his substitute. When Assyrian kings made images of themselves to be placed in conquered cities or at important borders, they were communicating that they were, in effect, continually present in that place. Finally, it is indicative of the relationship that God intends to have with us.[2](bold emphasis mine)
The meaning of humans made in “the image of God”, in its social context, is powerful: Humans are vice-regents with God; we are God’s regal stewards and representatives. “As God’s stewards, we are tasked to do his work in the world; we are to be his assistants in the order-bringing process that has begun.”[3]
2) God’s regal image is male and female
Darrow Miller’s Figure 14 in Nurturing the Nations, page 130.
Second, humanity made in God’s image comprises both male and female. We find here the essential equality-in-being of male and female—man and woman. This means that humanity’s image of God is incomplete if it is only male or only female. The Godhead comprises both masculine and feminine qualities. Miller writes: “The masculine and feminine polarities are complementary in marriage and reflect something of the mystery of the eternal unity and diversity in the Trinity.”[4] This is borne out in the Scriptures:
Masculine attributes are conveyed in the common use “Father” and “Son” to describe God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son. Moreover, God is “husband” to his people Israel in the Old Testament (Ez 16:32; Hosea 9:1), and Christ is the bridegroom of the church in the New Testament (Eph 5:31–32; Rev 19:7).
God’s feminine attributes are conveyed in the Bible’s use of feminine terminology describing God. Whereas the Bible says God is Father, we observe that the Bible says God is like a mother. Miller points out, “The Bible uses simile to state that God is like a mother, but never that God is a mother. God is like … a woman giving birth (Is 42: 14; 46:3) … a nursing mother (Is 49: 13– 15; 66:10–13) … a mother hen (Mat 23: 37; Luke 13:34) … a mother eagle (Ex 19: 4; Deut 32:10–12)”[5]
This takes us back to Genesis 1:27—the image of God is both male and female, masculine and feminine. The origin story of the Bible clearly reveals the essential equality of being—the same regal honor!—of man and woman, husband and wife.
3) The Cultural Mandate is a regal responsibility fulfilled by man and woman together
The message of Genesis 1:28 is often referred to as the Cultural Mandate. It is also known as the Creation Mandate or the Dominion Mandate.
Notice the first two phrases of verse 28: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply …’”. The blessing is given to them. And the command is given to them—male and female, man and woman. The implication is that God’s purpose and plan cannot be carried out by just men alone or by just women alone.
Again, Darrow Miller:
… it is worth reiterating that the Genesis 1: 26–28 creation mandate to procreate and exercise dominion … is given to the imago Dei: male and female. Note that a single human being, or a group of males, or a group of females cannot fulfill either part. It takes a team effort of male and female. The woman is not an object. She is not the property of man. She is equally the imago Dei. In God’s design, the responsibilities of pro-creation and dominion are shared. The mandate is for all.[6]
Equality of being for women across the entire biblical narrative
Much more can be said, of course, about the essential equality of being for women as revealed in the Bible. Scripture gives us the foundational belief in the God-created, regal honor of woman shared with the man. Here are some highlights:
God created woman as an egalitarian companion for man—“flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones” (Gen 2:18, 20–23)—someone equal in being and complimentarian in function or role.
Wisdom is portrayed as a queen—a woman of regal stature in Proverbs (Pr 3:13–18; cf. Pr 8:1; 9:1–4)
Proverbs 31:10–31 describes a godly wife fully engaged in family life (Pr 31:10–12, 15, 27–28), fitness (Pr 31:17), marketing and commerce (Pr 31:13–14, 24), helping the poor (Pr 31:20), teaching kindness and wisdom to others (Pr 31:26)—all rooted in healthy fear of God (Pr 31:30). This portrayal describes a woman who is neither hidden at home, nor cowering in weakness, nor stifled to be quiet. She is strong, dignified, confident (Pr 31:25–26).
The Song of Solomon speaks of the pleasures of the sexual relationship in the loving union between a husband and wife. It takes place in the social setting of Solomon’s Israel around 950 B.C. One of the primary meanings of this tantalizing book is stunning—in light of the traditional honor-shame standards and patriarchal values of the Ancient Near East. The stunning principle (Song 2:16) is this: The woman is equally entitled as the man to sexual pleasure and fulfillment.[7]
In the Gospels, Jesus is famously egalitarian in his treatment of women. In all of his interactions with women, the woman is dignified and honored in the process. Perhaps the most famous is the account of his counter-cultural interactions with the Samaritan woman (John 4:4–42). Jesus treats women in such a radically honorific manner—while never minimizing their sin—that Miller says, “Jesus was the first feminist”.[8]
Apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that in Christ there is no distinction—that is, no inequality of being—between male and female. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
The fact that the narrative of Scripture begins and ends with “the nuptial”[9]—that is, ceremonial wedding language (Gen 2:23–24; Rev 19:7–9)—speaks of the incredibly high view of marriage, of woman, of male and female, husband and wife.
Men are not superior to women
The Bible teaches that in God’s design, men are not superior to women! The woman is straightforwardly equal—equal in being—to the man. The regal honor of man—and likewise, the regal honor of woman—is plain in numerous Scripture passages from Genesis to Revelation. How vital this is to counter the horrible lie: “Men are superior to women.”
Satan’s lies and humanity’s sin have corrupted God’s glorious design and intentions. Sin is universal. So the Bible’s high, honorific—indeed, regal—view of woman is in glaring contrast to the oppression and shame suffered by women and girls in varying degrees all around the world. This has mammoth implications for family life, for church life, for politics, for education, for believers everywhere.
What are some implications for mission? We will consider this in our next post.
FOOTNOTES
1. Darrow L. Miller: Nurturing the Nations: Reclaiming the Dignity of Women in Building Healthy Cultures (p. 2). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
2. John H. Walton: The Lost World of Adam and Eve, (InterVarsity Press, 2015), p. 42.
7. See Diane Bergant: “My Beloved is Mine and I am His” (Song 2:16): The Song of Songs and Honor and Shame” in Semeia 68: Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible (The Society of Biblical Literature, 1996), p. 23–35.
8. Miller., p. 3. Comparing the role of the man to that of the woman in family and society, Miller argues throughout his book for equality in being and hierarchy in roles. He bases this on trinitarian theology. The Bible speaks of the Godhead—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—having equality in being and hierarchy in roles. Just as there is loving leadership and submission in the Trinity, there ought also to be loving leadership and submission in the family.
With this blog post I begin a series on what I call the “top ten honor-shame dynamics in the book of Genesis”.
#1. The honor of God as Creator
We begin with the Bible’s first verse.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
What is the honor-shame dynamic contained in this verse? On the surface, there is nothing that seems honorific here.
So I will turn to one of the great evangelical scholars on Genesis—John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School. His book, The Lost World of Genesis One, offers a helpful beginning point. This beginning point is not about honor. This beginning point is about context, that is, the intent of the original author of Genesis to communicate in his context, with his audience.
Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it dictates what modern science should look like. This approach to the text of Genesis 1 is called “concordism,” as it seeks to give a modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one attempt to “translate” the culture and text for the modern reader. The problem is, we cannot translate their cosmology to our cosmology, nor should we. If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available); it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say. …
We gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood.[1]
Walton says much, much more about these context-based truths in his book. Walton argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible in such a way that it also frees us from having to retrofit modern ideas and beliefs—whether “Young Earth” or “Old Earth” science—into the ancient text of Genesis. Yes, we believe the book of Genesis was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; we equally affirm it was written to an ancient audience for whom science had not yet been invented. As Walton says, “We therefore recognize that although the Bible was written for us (indeed, for everyone), it is not written to us. In its context, it is not communicated in our language; it is not addressed to our culture; it does not anticipate the questions about the world and its operations that stem from our modern situations and issues.”[2]
The “cognitive environment” of the Ancient Near East
In Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve, he comments on the “cognitive environment” of the Ancient Near East—and how radically different it was from that of our modern world.
As an example of the foreign aspects of the cognitive environment, people in the ancient world had no category for what we call natural laws. When they thought of cause and effect … they were more inclined to see the world’s operations in terms of divine cause. Everything worked the way it worked because God set it up that way and God maintained the system. They would have viewed the cosmos not as a machine but as a kingdom, and God communicated to them about the world in those terms. His revelation to them was not focused on giving them a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanics of the world. (bold emphasis mine)[3]
Not a machine, but a kingdom and a temple
Here’s a key statement. “They would have viewed the cosmos not as a machine but as a kingdom.” Of course there is no kingdom without a king—the regal Person enthroned and ruling over that kingdom. And this is the beginning place for us to observe the regal honor of God as Creator.
Before we turn back to Scripture, here is one more quote from Walton; this builds on the idea of creation as a kingdom, and elaborates on the sacred, honorific purpose of creation.
It would not have been difficult for a reader from anywhere in the ancient Near East to take one quick look at the seven-day account and draw the conclusion that it was a temple story. … the temple was the center of God’s rule. In the ancient world, the temple was the command center of the cosmos—it was the control room from where the god maintained order, made decrees and exercised sovereignty. Temple building accounts often accompanied cosmologies because after the god had established order (the focus of cosmologies in the ancient world), he took control of that ordered system. This is the element that we are sadly missing when we read the Genesis account. God has ordered the cosmos with the purpose of taking up his residence in it and ruling over it.(bold emphasis mine)[4]
This idea of all creation as a temple for God was a jolt to my thinking. I’m not used to thinking that all nature is sacred space. But this is the assumption often made by the authors of Scripture—as you will see below. The heavens and the earth are sacred space—a royal temple for the Creator-King who is dwelling in and ruling over all he has made.
The Psalms give witness
In particular, the Psalms give witness to this honorific nature of the LORD as Creator-King. In the selection of verses from the Psalms below, take note of two things. First, observe the frequent occurrence of the words earthandheavens—clearly echoing Gen. 1:1. Secondly, observe the frequent use of honorific words: glory, name, majesty, worship, praise, exalted, King, reign, throne,etc.
O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all theearth! You have set your glory above the heavens. (Ps. 8:1)
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Ps. 19:1)
All theends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. (Ps. 22:27)
The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers. (Ps. 24:1–2)
Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth! (Ps. 46:10)
Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises! For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm! God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holythrone. (Ps. 47:6–8)
God has not merely created a material universe. No, God has created the heavens and the earth as sacred space—a temple for worship of the one true God, King of creation!
Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves in them. (Ps. 69:34)
Blessed be his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory! Amen and Amen! (Ps. 72:19)
Let them be put to shame and dismayed forever; let them perish in disgrace, that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth. (Ps. 83:17–18)
Say among the nations, “The LORDreigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.” Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it! Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy. (Ps. 96:10–12)
To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens! (Ps. 123:1)
God is Creator-King, and creation is his temple
For a more extensive proof-text, consider Psalms 96–100. You’ll see for yourself a continuous revelation about the Creator-King.
God is King—enthroned, majestic, glorious, infinitely honorable (Ps. 95:3–6; Ps. 96:6–10; Ps. 97:1–2; Ps. 98:6; Ps. 99:1–5; Ps. 100:4).
God is Creator of the earth—and thus deserving of worship from all the earth: (Ps. 95:4–5; Ps. 96:1, 9, 11–13; Ps. 97:1, 4–5, 9; Ps. 98:3–4, 7–9; Ps. 99:1; Ps. 100:1).
The heavens and the earth are a temple—sacred space in which all peoples, nations—even all nature—rejoice together in worship of the Creator-King (Ps. 95:1–7; Ps. 96:1–13; Ps. 97:1–9; Ps. 98:1–9; Ps. 99:1–5; Ps. 100:1–5)
It is unmistakable—the heavens and the earth do not comprise a “machine” devoid of sacred honor; no, the heavens and the earth comprise an honorific temple of the Most High God, the Creator-King!
A prayer:Lord God Most High, we join the chorus of saints from across the earth and across the ages—“Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker!” (Ps. 95:6) It is you who has made us and not we ourselves (Ps. 100:3). We submit ourselves to you in love and obedience—returning blessing, honor and praise to you—Creator-King of the heavens and the earth!
1. John H. Walton: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2010), p. 16–17. Kindle Edition.
2. John H. Walton: The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2015), p. 19.
I’ve just redesigned my blog. I wanted a new look, and also wanted it to be easier for readers using tablets and smartphones. Hope you like the new design. The banner photo comes from our trip to Spain in May; it was taken on a country road between Malaga and Ronda. Loved the ancient arches from the Roman Empire—and the symbolism of a modern road that leads you toward the ancient. ♦ This post originally appeared at Gospel-Life.net.It has been slightly modified. —Werner
I had just preached a sermon on how God covers our shame and restores our honor based on the Prodigal Son story. Afterward, a smiling elderly Christian woman came to me and shared how the sermon had blessed her. Wonderful!
But I was especially startled when she said. “You know, when I was a little girl, something happened to me, and I’ve never been able to get rid of it. Until today.”
It seems she knew she was forgiven of her sins, but because of the sins of another against her, she had felt defiled—literally for decades.
In May I had the privilege of speaking at an international Baptist church in Spain. My sermon was “Jesus Makes Us Clean.” At the end of the service, an individual was crying. Like me, she had grown up with a mentally-ill father. For years, she and her sister had been deeply embarrassed and ashamed. They felt defiled.
She was involuntarily stained by the effects of a sinful fallen humanity by a father who involuntarily suffered from schizophrenia.
Is relational pollution getting worse and worse? Maybe it’s just always been this way.
What is sin to a post-Christendom world?
In our postmodern secular world many people no longer believe in the reality of sin. Alan Mann writes in his book, Atonement for a Sinless Society, that “geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists increasingly … allow us to live in the confidence that we do no wrong.”[1]
And as for the death of Christ, “To twenty-first-century sensibilities, the crucifixion of Jesus [is] nothing more than a primitive, barbaric, pointless death.”[2]
Part of Mann’s thesis is that the best way for secular peoples to come to terms with sin is to be presented with this: Sin is relational defilement, uncleanness, pollution.
Consider the relational defilement that most secular peoples readily acknowledge: poverty of all kinds … racism and bigotry … sexual trafficking … an epidemic of addictions … the persistence of slavery … institutional greed and corruption … violent nationalism … honor-killings … bloody culture clashes.
What does it all add up to? A dirty, traumatized, defiled, relationally polluted world!
In this world of sin, I am unclean. Isaiah observed: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips and dwell among a people of unclean lips …” (Isa. 6:5).
Sin is personal—for I am an agent of sin having fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
Andsin is social—for I am also a victim of the sins of others. I’m defiled by living in a world-nation-community-family of fallen humanity. Am I “playing the victim card”? No. I’m describing the complexity of the effects of sin. When it comes to sin, we are all both agents and victims.
Is Christ’s death sufficient to cleanse us from being both agents and victims of sin?
The Psalmist David reveals this agent-and-victim duality about sin: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3).
On the one hand, I am the victim of the sins of others (“iniquities prevail against me”). On the other hand, we are all responsible agents of sin (“our transgressions”). But David’s song to God contains good news concerning his sinfulness both as an agent and victim of sin: “You atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3). There is an atonement-remedy for both!
The writer of Hebrews said of the death and atonement of Christ: “So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order that he might sanctify the people through his own blood” (Heb. 13:12). In his death, Jesus became unclean—he “suffered outside the gate.” Why? “…in order that he might sanctify the people”—in order to cleanse the people. Through His death, Jesus became unclean in order to make believers cleanforever.
“When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3). When Jesus made “purification for sins” (Heb. 1:3), He made provision to cleanse us from sins committed byus—and from sins committed against us.
Hallelujah, what a gospel! Hallelujah, what a Savior!
1. Mann, Alan (2015-12-18). Atonement for a Sinless Society: Second Edition (Kindle Location 121–122). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
One could rightly say that the Bible is at once 1) God’s revelation of the origin of violence among humans, 2) a series of stories and case histories on the kinds of violence common to humanity, and 3) God’s revelation through the Jesus Christ as the cure for violence on the stage of human history.
Of course, the Bible is more than a great big book about violence, but it is certainly not less than this.
In the Old Testament, there is an enormous amount of murder, raping, bloody revenge, the stoning of sinful people, decapitation of enemies and kings, the offering of infants in ritual sacrifice, whole cities being destroyed, entire peoples and armies either enslaved or annihilated … and so much more.
In the New Testament we read of the murder of infants, the decapitation of John the Baptist, the stoning of righteous people, the bloody torture and crucifixion of the holy Son of God, the martyrdom of saints.
Let‘s face it: The Bible is a big book with a lot of violence, much of it honor-based violence. But why?
In this series of posts, I am proposing:
The Bible reveals the origin of human violence—and that it is largely honor-based.
The Bible describes the kinds of violence in the Bible and in our worldtoday—and that what they have in common is that they are both largely honor-based. This reflects the pathology of sin/shame permeating humanity—as well as the cultural value of honor/shame.
The Bible reveals that the cure for humanity’s violence is found in Jesus Christ, and we will see that this cure may also be considered honor-based.
And if there will be one point to grab hold of from these posts, it will be this:
The numerous stories of honor-based violence and bloodshed in the Old Testament—often considered obscure, repulsive, or irrelevant—are, to the contrary, profoundly relevant entry points for the gospel in today’s world.
Gory stories and glory stories
What else will this series of posts lead to? I will contend that we must rediscover the Old Testament’s stories of violence—what I am calling the “gory stories”.
I will propose that we must teach, preach, and evangelize by using the Bible’s gory stories—for they are historic, narrative on-ramps to God’s own gory and glory Story—culminating with the good news, the gospel of peace in Jesus Christ.
Christian leaders of all kinds need to re-acquaint themselves with the bloody, gory, “adult content” of the Bible—and be willing to teach it and preach it.
The Bible’s numerous, dramatic stories of violence are there for a reason. That reason is to connect—to resonate, to speak with Christ-centered hope to a world awash in violence. For the Word of God pierces “to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow” (Heb 4:12).
We must recover the truth that the entire Bible is useful for evangelism, not merely a set of a few verses or biblical presuppositions. The entire Bible, even the gory stories can be an essential, exciting part of making disciples of all nations—so that King Jesus is known and worshiped among all the peoples of the earth.
Could it be that the peoples of the earth are actually longing to hear this gospel which speaks with blood-earnest, street-level authenticity to our worlds of violence?
This blog post is an excerpt from chapter 3.5 of my book, 
The Psalmist David reveals this agent-and-victim duality about sin: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Ps. 65:3).
