Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
I am enthused about our new podcast “Doing Theology, Thinking Mission.” Here’s why…
1) It meets a need. You will hear compelling (and surprising!) explorations of how Christian theology and the church’s mission relate to each other; that’s pretty special in the world of podcasts. We cover contextualization, honor and shame, biblical interpretation, and the church’s mission in the world.
2) It’s engaging. Dr. Jackson Wu, Carrie Vaughn, and I genuinely enjoy conversing together about the issues we cover and the stories we tell. I’m pretty sure our joy and passion leak through.
3) It’s relevant. It is no small challenge to make the Bible’s story and truths, centered in the life of Jesus Christ, relevant to our broken world. It is an endless quest with lots of discoveries along the way. I hope that this podcast will be a help for many on that same quest.
Check out Episode 1: “How the Bible Frames the Gospel”
In episode 1, we explore the way the Bible consistently frames the gospel. While gospel formulas are comfortable, our pursuit of simple, efficient, and portable gospel explanations have led to an anemic church. Is the gospel the message about how to get saved? Maybe not completely. What if the gospel is not so much the message about how we get saved but the message we must believe in order to be saved?
We also explore the following:
“We compromise the gospel when we settle for the truth.” What does this mean?
Creation, Covenant, and Kingdom—the three gospel frameworks found in the Bible.
Is the truth that “Jesus is King” central to the gospel?
Doing Theology, Thinking Mission is available on most podcast platforms. Here’s a link to one: Apple podcasts.
The focus of this post is on the example of Apostle Paul. He is born and raised a Jew. He has an unquenchable passion for knowing and serving Jesus Christ. As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul says things that seem contradictory about himself concerning Israel and his Jewish identity.
On the one hand, Paul loves Israel intensely (Rom 9:3–5). He is proud of being Jewish: “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1).
On the other hand, for Paul, knowing Jesus the Christ gives him a glorious “surpassing worth” or honor. This honor surplus embedded in Christ is so glorious, that by comparison it apparently degrades other aspects of his identity, namely his Jewishness (Phil 3:8). I use the word degrade intentionally—he compares aspects of his Jewish identity to “rubbish.”
We observe that Paul’s honor, reputation, or social capital has become saturated by the glory of Christ. This makes other sources of honor, other facets of his identity—race, tribe, citizenship, education or other achievements—seem much smaller in comparison.
Paul’s life is an example of how Jesus Christ undermines the significance of one’s race or tribe.
Paul loves being a part of God’s people Israel
Being of the Hebrew race and culture, Paul loves God’s people Israel. Paul loves his “kinsmen according to the flesh” so much that he writes, “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers” (Rom 9:3).
Paul also recognizes that God has specially chosen the “Israelites” (Rom 9:4). Paul is boasting when he offers this impressive list of honorifics attributable to his people: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 9:4–5).
Paul is proud of his race the Hebrews. He cares about God’s people Israel—the prophets and families and tribes and land. Paul cares about the ancient promises of God to Israel. Paul knows Jesus as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of Israel’s story (Rom 1:1–5) by which God saves the world.
Who is Paul before knowing Jesus?
In Philippians 3, Paul describes what he is proud of in his life. He describes his ascribed and achieved honor as a Jewish man. (Learn about “Two sources of honor—ascribed and achieved”: short video / long video / chapter excerpt).
Who is Paul prior to knowing Christ? Here is the answer in Philippians 3:5–6. Paul makes a list of the features of his life about which he was most proud. He is comparing his ascribed and achieved honor status to others—Jews who claim to be Christ-followers but are demanding that gentile Christian converts be circumcised (Phil 3:2–3). Paul is playing a game of one-upmanship. You say you’re a good Jew? … Oh, yeah? … Well, “If anyone else thinks they have reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more” (Phil 3:4).
So Paul lays it out for his readers: Paul has a bounty of social capital as a Jewish man: “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5–6). Below is a chart that categorizes Paul’s honor status or social capital based on these two verses:
Having made his boast about his multifaceted Jewish honor, Paul then makes an absolutely stunning statement:
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.
Philippians 3:7–8
Paul intends to shock his readers. He succeeds:
Paul says that his status based on race and bloodline is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his parental upbringing is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social status based on his nationality is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on his tribal identity is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his social capital based on his educational achievements is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his status based on his religious achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul says that his honor based on any ethical achievement is “as rubbish.”
Paul is exaggerating to make a point
We saw in Romans 9–11 that Paul identifies himself as Jewish, and that he loves God’s people Israel. So in Philippians 3, why is Paul seemingly abusing his own racial, tribal, national, and religious identity?
What is Paul saying here? Is Paul saying: These honor status features in my life won’t get me to heaven? Or, No one can trust in theirgood works for salvation?
I believe Paul’s emphasis is elsewhere.1 Paul’s emphasis is on the glory of Jesus Christ. He is so enamored with knowing Christ that a gigantic shift has occurred in his sense of self, his sense of … Who am I? To whom do I belong? The surpassing worth of Christ makes everything else valuable in life pale in comparison.
Paul is enthralled with Christ. Paul is overwhelmed by the honor and joy of knowing and serving the Messiah-King. In Paul’s letter, the word Christ occurs no less that 35 times. Here is a sampling:
“…whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, in that I rejoice (Phil 1:18) … “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21) … “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11) … “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil 3:7) … “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord … in order that I may gain Christ” (Phil 3:8) … “I press on … because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Phil 3:12) … “Our citizenship is in heaven and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 3:20) … “I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13) … “God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19) … “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:21).
Knowing and serving the Christ is so magnificent that—by comparison—race, tribe, nationality, education, and other measures of social worth are irrelevant
Paul describes his life goal: “that I may know him” (Phil 3:10). His passion and treasure is “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” This has a social impact. Cross-cultural, inter-ethnic unity in the church is a real possibility. This is no small issue for Paul. The religious leaders who have unbiblical obstacles to faith and unity in Christ are “dogs” and “evildoers” (Phil 3:2). This is a gospel issue: The body of Christ is to be a community of diversity (see my prior post: “The atonement kills hostility between peoples”).
The Bible undermines racism in Philippians 3: It happens in our lives through the glory of knowing Christ. I offer two summary points:
Because of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” all forms of social capital are relativized, including racial and tribal identity.
To gain greater diversity in the local church, we need more than a common faith in Christ. Paul’s testimony in Philippians 3 suggests that the risks of crossing social boundaries are overcome through a passionate allegiance to Christ and desire for the experience of Christ.
NOTES
Issues of salvation and the afterlife are secondary issues in Philippians 3 (Phil 3:11; 20–21). Paul is not making a distinction between Jews getting to heaven by works versus Christians getting to heaven by grace. The overwhelming emphasis in Philippians 3, as well as on the rest of the letter, is simply … Christ!—the magnificent, glorious, transformational reality of knowing and serving Jesus the Christ (Phil 1:21; 2:1; 5; 2:10–11; 3:3; 7–8; 12; 14; 4:13; 19). Paul wants his friends in Philippi (Phil 1:3) to imitate his passionate allegiance to the Christ.
This is my second post in a series on how the gospel of Christ offers a cure to the pathologies of racism and tribalism. My first post in the series, “All Gentiles are born ‘strangers and aliens’”, is here. A small part of this second post is adapted from my forthcoming article in Missio Dei Journal: “An Honor-Bearing Gospel for Shame-Fueled Crises.”
In Ephesians 2:16 we read that the cross is “killing the hostility.” What does this mean?
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. –Ephesians 2:13–16 ESV
Four verses on what Christ’s atonement accomplishes
In Ephesians 2:13–16 Paul proclaims a stunning truth: The cross kills hostility (Eph 2:16). The default hostility between Jew and Gentile is plain in these verses. Somehow the atonement of Christ makes it possible to resolve this conflict.
Once far off, now brought near
Verse 13. The phrase “But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off …” (Eph 2:13) is like saying, You Gentiles were distant from God’s people.You and your people were so very different from my people. This distance between us made us natural enemies. But now, in King Jesus, “you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).
The crucifixion of Jesus did something world-altering in the social realm. Being “in Christ” is not merely an individual, vertical, largely internal and invisible, spiritual reality. Being “in Christ” is also about who we are (plural) right now, right here. It is likewise a spiritual reality that is social, horizontal, external, public, and visible. This happens “by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13).”
Timothy Tennent writes: “The New Testament celebrates a salvific transformation that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Personal salvation in the New Testament is inextricably linked to becoming a part of the new humanity of Ephesians 2:15.”1
The gospel has a social dimension because the atonement has a social dimension.
The gospel truth: The atonement transforms both the individual-vertical and social-horizontal arenas of human life.
The crucified-and-risen Christ is our peace
Verse 14. When Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace,” it is understood that without Christ, conflict prevails. Hostility between peoples is humanity’s default. The phrase “who has made us both one” is not referring to two persons in conflict. It refers to two groups, Jews and Gentiles, in conflict. Paul is saying I belong to the Jews (collectively); and you (collectively) are the Gentiles. (See the post on HonorShame.com, “In Christ as a Communal Ethic,” which offers a fuller explanation.)
This making “us both one” is only possible because Christ has “broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” Paul is saying that when Christ’s body was crucified, something was broken “in his flesh.” That something is “the wall of hostility.” Somehow the atonement of Jesus the Christ breaks down walls of conflict between Jew and Gentile peoples “in Christ.”
But God is doing more than offering reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles. God’s purpose is “to unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), and “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). Any conflict between peoples, any racial hostility, can be resolved in the Christ who is “our peace”—people together giving their allegiance to King Jesus.
The gospel truth: The atonement breaks down walls of hostility between peoples.
Abolishing values that fuel tribalism and segregation
Verse 15. “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph 2:15). What does this have to do with atonement? We find clarification in Colossians 2:14: “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Christ “abolishing the law of commandments” (Eph 2:15) overlaps with Christ “canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” by “nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14).
The law in the Old Testament was not only the moral law of God. The law also consisted of regulations that were more cultural in nature (such as food guidelines), and contributed to the “wall of hostility” between the Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles). Mark Roberts writes, “The death of Christ has supplanted the law, and therefore all people can belong to God through faith because of his grace in Christ.”2 Cultural differences that are the basis for division, conflict, and hostility are subsumed in the crucifixion and resurrection of the man Jesus the Christ.
The gospel truth: The atonement nails to the cross cultural regulations or values that are the basis for tribal or racial separation.
The “one new man”—who is this?
More on verse 15. “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” Who is this “one new man”? What is this new way of being human?
This is the kingdom-of-God program of identity formation. In Ephesians 2:19, God is democratizing honor for believers—insider status is available to all who give their allegiance to the Christ. This “one new man” (Eph 2:15), this new way of being human, relativizes every other form of social capital. Even racial identity is somehow absorbed into Christ. Roberts writes:
Recall that the recipients of the letter were… Gentiles “by birth” (literally “in flesh,” en sarki). These Gentiles did not become Jewish when they received God’s grace through Christ. Rather, Christ made them into something different from ordinary Gentiles and Jews. The early Christian writing known as the Epistle to Diognetus expresses this same point when it calls Christians a new race, “neither Jewish nor Gentile.”3
The Epistle to Diognetus calls Christians a new race, neither Jewish nor Gentile. This is an arresting thought. It informs how we think about the phrase “one new man” (Eph 2:15), hena kainon anthropon in the Greek. The phrase is also translated “one new humanity” (NIV), and “one new people” (NLT). Believers from Jewish backgrounds as well as Gentile backgrounds, believers from every social class together, gain not merely the ultimate insider status—“members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19); Christ-followers also gain a new core identity.
Could it be—the influence of Jesus Christ on who we are is so fundamental, it’s almost like gaining a new racial identity?
McNall captures the essence of this new identity. “This transformation [by the reconciling cross of Christ] is seen … in the tearing down of ethnic and cultural boundaries (‘the dividing wall of hostility’ [2:14]). This demolition results in a new community comprised of a new people who do not look like they belong together. Only Jesus and his spirit can account for this strange lot.”4
The gospel truth: The atonement creates a new way of being human—a new identity in Christ that’s like “a third race.”
That strange phrase—“killing the hostility”
Verse 16. “and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility” (Eph 2:16). Somehow, the brutal violence of the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ kills the hostility between “us both.” Paul is getting personal again when he says “us both” (Eph 2:14, 16). He himself is part of a collective identity (Jewish) needing reconciliation in Christ “to God in one body”—with another collective identity (Gentile).
These two groups are separated and segregated. Although they live in the same city, they are not in the same neighborhood. They generally do not live together, play together, or worship together. They do not intermarry. They have different physical features, There are hundreds of years of hostility between them. Their politics and cultures compete, sometimes violently. They are suspicious of each other.
But Paul says when persons and peoples give allegiance to Jesus the Christ—the One who was brutally crucified, the One who then rose from the dead and was exalted as king of kings—something glorious happens. The atonement of Christ is “killing the hostility.” This verse is in the active, present-tense voice as though the Christ-event, which happened two thousand years ago, is impacting humanity into our present days and forward into the future.
Reconciliation between peoples in conflict is not merely a dream. Reconciliation is embodied in the man Jesus Christ and his body crucified and risen again. Peace is possible. Paul boldly imagines a new humanity, “one new man” (Eph 2:15), a “third race,” embodied in Christ. The core identity of this body is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither red or yellow, black or brown or white. It is not that cultural distinctions are obliterated. It is that Jesus the Christ is so glorious and so magnified in our social relations that the walls of separation and hostility dissolve. Paul envisions this as the new normal.
The gospel truth: The atonement kills hostility between peoples.
Toward a social imagination based on Ephesians 2
What are we being called to believe? That the cross kills all hostility in the here-and-now? No, we are not called to magical thinking. I recommend three “steps of belief.”
The cross kills hostility—step 1: The social hostility between Jewish and Gentile peoples (although in some cases commanded by the Old Testament) was in some measure conquered by the violence of the cross. Peace is possible—now—through the “new humanity” (Eph 2:15). Traditionally at odds with one another, Jews and Gentiles really can worship in unity through their common faith in Jesus the Christ, despite cultural and racial differences.
The cross kills hostility—step 2: This biblical truth extends to any and all peoples in conflict, since the plan of God “for the fullness of time” is to “unite all things in him” (Eph 1:10), to “reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). We see that this applies globally for all families, peoples, and nations. It is a sure hope for the future—an eschatological hope.
The cross kills hostility—step 3: In the third step, we dream. This dream stage is a call for Christians to develop a social imagination that is informed by Ephesians 2. It is a vision that, as Timothy Gombis says, “includes and celebrates racial, ethnic and gender differences . . . [whereby] no singular gender, ethnicity or race is any closer to God than any other. We are all one in Christ and are now free to explore the gifts that each group brings to the kingdom party.”5 This step combines the “now” of step 1 with the “whole-world hope” of step 2. Could it be that the pathologies of racism and tribalism may in some measure be cured by the atonement of Christ “killing the hostility”?
ACTION POINTS
Evaluate your view of the atonement. Have you ever considered Ephesians 2:13–16 as part of a comprehensive view of the doctrine of the atonement? Might Ephesians 2:13–16 be just as important as, for example, Romans 3:23–25? Why do you think this Ephesians passage is under-represented in the literature about the atonement? For example, in this best-selling Systematic Theology, an extensive chapter (Ch. 27) is devoted to the doctrine of the atonement. Not one mention is given to Ephesians 2:13–16. In fact, not one time is Eph 2:13–16 cited in the entire volume. This is the case, despite the density of truths concerning “the blood” (Eph 2:13) of Christ, “the cross” of Christ, the emphasis on “his flesh” (Eph 2:14), as well reconciliation and the act of “killing” (Eph 2:16). Is this evidence of a theological blind spot that ignores group identity issues? Does this hint at why the evangelical church struggles with how to address racism and tribalism?
Teach and preach the gospel based on the atonement truths in Ephesians 2:13–16. Develop a gospel message that calls people to give their allegiance to Christ based primarily on these verses.
This is the final post in a series on allegiance in the Christian faith.
Post #1 introduces the topic of allegiance to “THE CHRIST”—Jesus 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: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ.
In this post, I want to summarize the main ideas. I will also consider several questions and some possible applications.
Summary of Key Ideas
Christ is King of kings; his followers give ultimate allegiance to Christ.
Allegiance and GRACE
In the ancient world, grace and allegiance were understood as a package deal. As a Christian, you received a magnificent gift (Gk., charis) from a great Patron (God). To receive an undeserved gift was deeply counter-cultural. In reciprocity, you return to the Patron praise, obedience, loyalty—allegiance. This reciprocal aspect of grace was in keeping with the culture.
Allegiance and FAITH
The Greek word pistis in the New Testament can be translated variously depending on the context as faith, belief, faithfulness, loyalty, allegiance. When it is used in relation to Jesus “the Christ,” that is, Jesus the Anointed One, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the King, then pistis often conveys the meaning of allegiance or loyalty.
Allegiance and BAPTISM
Baptism expresses one’s identification with the Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:3–5). Baptism is also an oath of allegiance to Jesus the Christ and his kingdom. This oath of allegiance to the Christ may be considered an implicit denial of allegiance to other social structures, which may be inconsistent with the values of the kingdom of God.
Questions and Possible Applications
Identity: To whom do we belong?
How should believers navigate multiple allegiances under their ultimate allegiance to Christ the King? In every Christian community, believers have multiple allegiances. Allegiance to your family is rightly considered basic. In many nations, allegiance to your country is considered a sacred duty. Among some peoples, loyalty to one’s tribe or extended family carries greater obligations than civic law or national identity.
Serving in the American military requires an Oath of Enlistment. Servicemen and women “solemnly swear” to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same; . . .”
The company you work for can also engender profound allegiance from its employees. A person can belong to a sports team, or be a die-hard fan of that team. A political party often requires allegiance from its members.
In what ways might allegiance to Christ benefit or enhance these various other relations? In what ways might allegiance to Christ serve as a critique to these relations?
The church
How does allegiance to Christ impact one’s allegiance to the local church? This relates to the question: To whom do we belong? In a culture of choice and radical individualism, how should believers express the primacy of their allegiance to the body of Christ?
Regular attendance, regular serving with your spiritual gifts, and regular financial support (tithing) are expressions of allegiance. People who call themselves “Christian” but are not committed to a local assembly of believers do not show allegiance to Christ.
Evangelism
Does the Lord call people to simple repentance and allegiance? How do we navigate the tension between simplicity and fierceness in the call to follow Jesus? The simplicity of following Christ may be referenced in these verses: Mat 18:2–3; 19:14; John 10:27–28; Rev 3:20; 22:17. The fierceness of following Christ may be referenced in these verses: Mat 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 9:26; 9:62; 14:27–28; 2 Tim 2:3.
Baptism
What if the church’s teaching on the subject of baptism included the early church perspective of an oath of allegiance to Jesus the Christ? In America, I have witnessed many celebratory baptisms. Should the baptism service be less celebratory and more solemn? What might make a baptism service more solemn? Considering the idea of allegiance as an oath, should children make oaths of allegiance? How might this affect our thinking about baptism of children or of infants?
Tribalism
Christ’s glorious Being transforms all secondary identity factors of the believer. If this is true, what are the practical results of one’s ethnicity, tribe, race, or social status being subsumed within one’s allegiance to Christ? How might allegiance to Christ lead you to rethink your social obligations, where you choose to live, or where your family worships?
Spiritual transformation
Because of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” Paul identifies all of his social capital (all of his Jewish moral and ethnic honor), whether ascribed or achieved honor, as “rubbish” (Phil 3:3–8). His experiential knowledge of Christ gives him the honor surplus that fuels his allegiance to Christ even unto suffering: “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:10–11).
Paul’s allegiance to Christ is integral to his participation with Christ. This glory of being in Christ relativizes all other aspects of his identity. How do believers get to the place in their journey where they share in the experience of “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord?” Should the suffering of believers be emphasized as normal rather than exceptional? Should everyone who pledges allegiance to the Christ expect to suffer?
Conclusion
If allegiance to Jesus the Christ is:
an integral part of the reciprocal nature of God’s grace,
a vital aspect of faith in Christ, and
the oath publicly proclaimed as part of the sacrament of baptism,
then it follows: Allegiance to Christ should be regularly proclaimed, taught, and modeled as a normal part of the Christian life.
This is post 4b in a series on allegiance in the Christian faith. We continue our exploration of the meaning of allegiance to Christ in the church’s sacrament of baptism.
Post #1 introduces the topic of allegiance to “THE CHRIST”—Jesus 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: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ.
Post #4 focused on allegiance and BAPTISM. We began looking at R. Alan Streett’s Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance.
The question we are continuing to explore is this: What does allegiance have to do with BAPTISM?
In this relatively short book (190 pages), Dr. Streett has eleven chapters. The chapter titles (below) comprise an overview of the significance of baptism in the New Testament.
Defining our Terms
Baptism in its Historical Context
Baptism and Roman Domination
John the Baptizer
The Baptism of Jesus
Baptism, Resurrection, and Restoration of the Kingdom
Baptism and Pentecost
Baptisms Beyond Jerusalem
Paul the Baptizer
Baptism in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles
Baptism in the Other Epistles and the Apocalypse
In my previous post, we considered the significance of the New Testament being written in the social and political situation of the Roman Empire. Allegiance to Caesar was required. Through the Roman army, Caesar Augustus had created political stability across a huge Empire by military force. He gave this program the name Pax Romana (Peace of Rome).
To accomplish the goal of universal peace, Augustus sent envoys, accompanied by armed troops, to those nations outside Roman territory with the good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of peace and invited them to join the satellite of Roman nations. In exchange for their pledge of loyalty, Caesar guaranteed their “peace and safety,” promising that the Roman military would protect their borders from invaders and maintain concord within their provincial boundaries. If Caesar’s offer was rejected, he sent his troops to invade and conquer the nation, and bring it under Roman rule.
Streett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance (p. 27). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Jesus, his disciples, and all the New Testament writers lived in the social environment of the Roman Empire. Loyalty and allegiance to Caesar was simply understood; and it was enforced by the well-paid Roman army. Those who defied “the glory that is Rome” were not tolerated. They were crushed militarily. Or they were crucified—brutal and total humiliation in public. Dr. Streett repeatedly points out (pp. 21, 28, 80, 103) that from a political perspective, Jesus was crucified for sedition—being a rival king to Tiberias Caesar (John 19:12–16) and causing social unrest. It was Jewish chief priests who cried out, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). (NOTE: Obviously, the accusation of sedition was not the only reason Christ was crucified. See, for example, Mark 10:45; John 3:16; Acts 2:23; Rom 3:23–25; Eph 1:7; 2:13–16; Heb 1:3; 2:14.)
Baptism as a sacrament of allegiance
In the Roman Empire, why did the sacrament1 (sacramentum) signify allegiance? And why did baptism express allegiance?
Dr. Streett cites numerous sources from the time of the Roman Empire to demonstrate that the sacramentum signifies allegiance. One source is Tacitus, born about 25 years after the death of Christ:
Tacitus (56–117 CE), the Roman senator and historian, referred to sacramentum during the Empire as the verbal pledge of allegiance a soldier gives to his emperor. Tacitus was the first to speak of “receiving the sacrament” (sacramentumacciperent) because the oath was being administered to the soldier on behalf of the emperor. The wording of the oath remained constant; only the object of the oath changed from one Caesar to the next. Through the reign of Caesar Tiberius (14–37 CE), soldiers were required to take the sacrament only once during their career, but during a time of great turmoil in the Empire, Galba (68 CE) required them to take the sacrament on a yearly basis. (p. 3)
What about early Christian leaders? Did they see baptism as allegiance? Streett references Tertullian—an early church leader and author whom many consider a founder of Western Christianity.
Tertullian (160–225 CE), the famed apologist, was more specific and identified the act of baptism as the Christian sacramentum and contrasted it to a Roman soldier’s pledge of loyalty to the emperor and Empire. By analogy, he makes the case that just as a soldier, upon his oath of allegiance, was inducted into Caesar’s army, so a believer was initiated by the sacrament (oath) of baptism into God’s kingdom. Each vowed faithful service to his god and kingdom. (p. 4)
Streett ties together material on baptism spanning the New Testament. He makes the case that baptism was not only an expression of identificationwith the Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:3–5). Baptism was also an oath of allegiance to the Christ and his kingdom. This oath of allegiance to the Christ was an implicit denial of allegiance to other social structures which may be inconsistent with the values of the kingdom of God.
The example of Jesus’ baptism
I found one insight from Streett particularly helpful. It concerns Luke’s record of the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:22). When Jesus was baptized, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove.” The dove, Streett argues, has political, anti-imperial overtones. Streett references William Karlson; his PhD dissertation traces the significance of birds in coronation practices—the public crowning and enthronement of a king.
[Karlson] traced the ritual coronation of English kings to the coronation practices in ancient Rome. In his dissertation he documents how Romans used divination, particularly augury, i.e., observing the flight of birds, to select their kings. Those who studied avian signs were called augurs or auspices. The term augur has Latin roots and etymologically means “to consecrate by augury.” We find it imbedded in the English word inauguration, meaning the coronation of a king.
Luke’s readers, familiar with the way emperors were chosen, would surely know that the Spirit alighting on Jesus as a dove “in bodily form” functioned in the same manner. It served as an avian sign or omen from heaven that pointed to Jesus as Yahweh’s choice as king. (pp. 56–57)
Streett’s citation is as follows: Karlson, William, Jr. “Syncretism: The Presence of Roman Augury in the Consecration of English Monarchs.” PhD diss., Baylor University, 2007.
Street highlights the fact that the eagle was the bird of choice for Roman emperors. He quotes Pliny the Elder, the Roman author and philosopher who lived in the first century: “Of the birds known to us the eagle is the most honorable and also the strongest.” . . . “the eagle became the bird of emperors” (p. 58). A gentle dove alighting on Jesus is an unmistakeable contrast to the flight of a powerful eagle authenticating a newly enthroned Ceasar.
For Luke, the coming of the Spirit “in bodily form” means it is an avian sign. Jesus is God’s choice as king. Unlike the Roman emperors, however, his reign will not be based on violence and domination. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29–30; 18:16; 22:25–27). Jesus is a king who brings peace, not at the expense and suffering of others, but through his own service and suffering. Jesus’ kingly power must be understood in contrast to the Roman understanding of power. (p. 60)
Jesus’ baptism is a statement about a new kind of King and a new kind of kingdom. It follows that believers’ baptism is an oath of allegiance to that King and his kingdom.
The baptism of Jesus is a spiritual event by which his kingdom is inaugurated. While Jesus’ kingdom is about heaven, it is also about “Thy kingdom come, the will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
If Jesus’ baptism was the inauguration of his kingdom, then what does it mean for believers to follow Christ’s example? The idea of baptism as mere outward symbol of an inward spiritual reality does not quite jive with the witness of Scripture in the social context of the Roman Empire. Believers’ baptism is also an oath of allegiance and loyalty to the King of kings and Lord of lords, who “came not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45).
Streett says, “The Lukan account [of Jesus’ baptism], with its use of avian imagery, portrayed Jesus as an anti-imperial king who would challenge Rome’s right to rule. His kingdom, based on social justice, covenant mercy, and the establishment of peace apart from the use of violence, was antithetical to the Roman domination system” (p. 64).
In the next post I will pull together the main ideas, ask some questions, and suggest some applications. View that post here.
The sacraments are a part of the life of the church. There are seven sacraments for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. For most Protestants, there are two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or Communion). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are considered sacraments by all true Christians.
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.
What if, in some verses of the New Testament, the Greek word pistis means allegiance instead of faith?
In my first post I introduced this series on allegiance to Christ. My second post was on allegiance and grace, referencing primarily Paul and the Gift by Prof. John M. G. Barclay. In this third post, we examine allegiance and faith.
The question we are exploring in this post: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH? Theologian: Matthew W. Bates (bio) Book:Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Brazos, 2019), 272 pages (more)
Three points before we get into the heart of this post
First of all, the Greek word pistis was frequently used in the social context of the New Testament world, and it had a range of meanings. It could mean belief and trust, as well as faithfulness, allegiance, or loyalty.
Second, Matthew Bates is not arguing that pistis should be translated allegiance all or even most of the time. On page 64 he states plainly in a subhead: “Pistis Does Not Usually Mean Allegiance.”
Third, a striking thing about pistis is how often scholars find its use in texts from the Roman Empire to describe . . .
relationships between generals and soldiers, kings and subjects, patrons and clients, masters and slaves, friends, family members, and lovers, and even one’s relationship with the self. Its purview includes politics, economics, law, philosophy, logic, tradition, and everyday life. It also describes divine-human relationships. This wide-ranging word [pistis] was given applied meanings in nearly every sphere of personal, social, and institutional life.” . . .
In fact, . . . pistis (and fides, its rough Latin equivalent) as loyalty or allegiance to military commanders and kings/emperors was so common that it is attested across a wider range of sources than any other category! This loyalty was reinforced by a military oath of allegiance. This pistis was not described as a one-time decision; rather, its duration is consistently stressed—allegiance that was genuine endured over the course of a full campaign or military career.
The word pistis impacts this issue: What does it mean to be in a saving relationship with “the Christ”?
We are using this principle: We expect the way New Testament writers used the pistis word family is the same way that other writers from that time period and social context (the Roman Empire)—used the pistis word family.
Bates contends: When the word pistis is used in relation to Jesus “the Christ,” that is, Jesus the Anointed One, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the King—then pistis often conveys the meaning of allegiance or loyalty.
How often do the words “the Christ” (meaning “the Messiah-King”) appear in the New Testament? Let’s consider just the book of Acts (all verses ESV):
Acts 2:31– he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Acts 3:20– that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,
Acts 5:42– And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.
Acts 8:5– Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Acts 9:22– But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
Other verses in Acts which have the phrase “the Christ” are: Acts 17:3; 18:5; 18:28; 26:23.
A great King has a great kingdom
The kingship of the Christ makes no sense without a kingdom. So there is also an emphasis on the kingdom of God in Acts.
Acts 1:3– He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
Acts 8:12– But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 14:22– strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:8– And [Paul] entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25– And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.
Acts 28:23– When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
And the last verse of the Acts of the Apostles describes Paul …
Acts 28:31– proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.
In the Acts of the Apostles author Luke has completed the thematic bridge which began in his Gospel. What is that theme? Jesus is “the Christ” (Luke 3:15; 4:41; 9:20; 20:41; 22:67; 23:35; 23:39; 24:26; 24:46). And Christ reigns over a “kingdom”: (Luke 1:33; 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1; 8:10; 9:2; 9:11; 9:27; 9:60–62; 10:9–11; 11:2; 11:20; 12:31; 12:32; 13:18; 13:20; 13:28–29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17; 18:24–25; 18:29; 19:11–12; 21:31; 22:16–18; 22:29; 22:30; 23:42; 23:51.)
Again and again, when Jesus preaches in Luke’s Gospel, and when the gospel is proclaimed in Acts, there is a primary emphasis not on Jesus as ‘my personal savior,’ but on Jesus as “the Christ.” Jesus is Messiah, Lord and King.
The royal gospel framework
Bates emphasizes the royal nature of the gospel. He argues that pistis is best understood as allegiance in relation to Jesus’ kingship.
The core meaning potential of pistis is faithfulness or faith, but when a royal social frame is present, this potential can be actualized as allegiance. In other words, we should expect allegiance to be a prominent applied meaning for pistis or pisteuō when we are talking about the Christ, the gospel, or saving benefits that a king bestows.
What does Bates mean by a “royal social frame”? He means that when the scripture is referring to a king (“the Christ”), or the good news that a king brings, then loyalty to that king—allegiance—is the probable meaning of the pistis word family. Two examples:
Acts 16:31—“Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” This can be translated, “Give allegianceto (pisteuson) the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Bates points out that since the jailer was likely an employee of the city of Philippi, he had probably sworn allegiance to Caesar. Giving his life to Jesus meant giving allegiance to another Lord, a higher King or Emperor—Jesus the Christ.
Romans 1:5—“through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among the nations.” The royal framework of “the gospel of God” (Rom 1:5) is seen in the setting of the first five verses of Romans. The Son of God is descended from the royal lineage of Israel’s great king David (Rom 1:3). This is an audacious thing to say right up front in light of the fact that everyone in Rome knew that Caesar was called son of God.)1 Moreover, “the obedience of faith (pistis) for the sake of his name among the nations” alludes to the Pax Romana, the Peace of Rome, which united many nations under Roman rule and created relative political stability. Bates contends that in the context of first-century Rome, this is better translated “the obedience of (pistis) allegiance for the sake of his name among the nations.”
Consider also Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–36). It has no specific call for faith or belief. Peter simply calls his Jewish audience to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus [the] Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). (Note: In my next post we will explore the significance of allegiance and baptism.) Peter’s sermon is saturated with royal symbols and references to Old Testament prophesies about the coming Messiah-King.
Therefore, God’s good news, the gospel, is calling forth allegiance to a good king, Jesus the Christ. Bates says that the “Short Gospel Summary” is that “Jesus is the saving king” (p. 277). God is calling forth allegiance from all persons and peoples who receive his saving grace and forgiveness of sins. A plain reading of the book of Acts leads one to see that a core gospel truth is Jesus is the Messiah-King who saves.
According to Bates, the common refrain in evangelical churches—“Jesus died for you as your personal Savior”—(while not untrue) is a deviation from the Christ-centered regal framework of the gospel in the New Testament:
The bottom line: The cross is theologically central to the gospel, but the focus is not individualistic forgiveness. Not even approximately. Proclaiming that “Jesus died for my/your personal sins” yields a salvation culture focused on individual belief in saving facts. We shouldn’t be astonished if it is hard to build church community and encourage discipleship within such a culture. We must proclaim the fuller truth: “The king died for our collective sins, so that we could yield allegiance.” When we do, we’ll find a community of loyal disciples emerging.
Meanwhile, gospel activity is summarized as proving or proclaiming that “Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3). The gospel’s royal framework is everywhere apparent once we begin to look at our texts with fresh eyes. Jesus’s enthronement is the gospel climax.
Allegiance to King Jesus allows for lesser allegiances
The opening verses (Rom 1:1–6) of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, capital of the Empire, comprise a description of the gospel. Theses verse could have been understood as politically subversive (Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not). They imply a challenge to the rule of Caesar.
But later in his epistle (Rom 13:1–7), Paul writes in support of governmental authority and institutions. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” And Peter writes plainly, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:17). Even our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). So the Bible offers a multi-faceted and nuanced conversation on these matters.2 Bates offers a summary in the paragraph below.
But to say that “Jesus is king, so Caesar is not” is at the same time too simple. Our allegiance to Jesus might in fact call us to support Caesar—as when we pay taxes (Rom. 13:6–7), pray for government leaders (1 Tim. 2:1–4), and live an orderly life amid non-Christians under the government’s partial authority (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). On the other hand, gospel allegiance might compel us to actively resist Caesar and his policies (Rev. 2:10–11, 13; 14:8–12; cf. Exod. 1–3). Jesus as the King of kings receives our unconditional allegiance. Mere earthly kings and governmental leaders receive our qualified allegiance, as long as it is not in conflict with our allegiance to the true king. Beyond government, we also must sort out how allegiance to family, employers, friends, and colleagues can all be ordered appropriately under allegiance to Jesus.
Conclusion: Our key question in this post has been: What does allegiance have to do with FAITH? On the one hand, Matthew Bates in Gospel Allegiance makes it clear that in the New Testament there are many uses of the pistis word family which are best translated trust, believe, or faith. On the other hand, Bates has persuaded me: The Greek word pistis is often best translated as allegiance in many texts referring to the gospel of Jesus the Christ.
Robert Jewett explains that Roman emperors were worshiped as gods by the people of the Roman Empire. For example, concerning Caesar Augustus: “The imperial cult celebrated ‘the gospel’ of the allegedly divine power of the emperor, viewing him, in the words of an official document from the province of Asia, as a savior … ‘who put an end to war and will restore order everywhere: Caesar, by his appearance has realized the hopes of our ancestors; not only has he surpassed earlier benefactors of humanity, but he leaves no hope to those of the future that they might surpass him. The god’s birthday was for the world the beginning of the gospel that he brought.’” Robert Jewett’s citation is “Letter of the Proconsul of Asia, Paulus Fabius Maximus, honoring Augustus in I. Priene, 105.35ff cited by Ceslas Spicq TLNT 3 (1994) 353.” Robert Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 138.
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.
