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.
“To whom do we belong?” Is this THE question, THE issue of our time?
To whom do we belong? We often answer this question automatically: I belong to a family.
The bloodline, the DNA, the family story into which one is born is a relentless identity-shaping force in our lives. This is true for good and for ill, blessing and cursing, and everything in between.
Beyond family, I and my family also belong to a land. Wehave a place called “home” in a particular neighborhood with a particular landscape and certain kinds of people with our own culture. It is where I am familiar to others and where I feel at home. I belong to a region where I work—a city or town. I also belong to a larger land called a nation. Finally, I belong to the human family. Of course, there are exceptions to this. People can be at home while at the same time, feel lost or isolated. People can also move from their homeland by choice, or be forced out by war, famine or other disaster.
But let’s return to family. The question, To whom do we belong? is a question about our core identity, our source of honor. Another term for honor is “social capital.” I like to ask: Where does our honor, our social capital, begin? From a social perspective, it begins with family.
In light of the vital importance of the bloodline family in our lives, let’s consider what Jesus has to say about family in Matthew 12:46–50.
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:46–50 ESV
I have written about this Scripture passage before. In The Global Gospel, I describe an honor-shame dynamic called Name/Kinship/Blood. I refer to this very story about Jesus. I observe that Jesus is teaching that there are two dynamics relative to the family of God—a narrowing dynamic and an expanding dynamic.
Rather shockingly, Jesus is redefining family for the Jews, the people of God. Jerome Neyrey calls it a “new index of honor.”1 In other words, Jesus is teaching a new way of measuring honor. No longer is it satisfactory to think that being ethnically Jewish automatically means that one has the honor status of being part of God’s family. Jesus narrows the criteria for membership in God’s family considerably. Pointing to his disciples, Jesus says, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Doing the will of God—obedience to the teachings of Jesus, e.g., the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7)—became the deciding criteria; this is the narrowing dynamic.
But Jesus expands the concept of God’s family as well. Being a member of God’s family and possessing the corresponding honor of being related to Jesus is now available to anyone and everyone; indeed, it is available to “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven.” This “new index of honor”—this new way of defining who was an “insider”—deeply challenged the status quo view of family.
Jesus’ teachings turned upside-down the traditional understanding of people of God, family, and father.2
Are the words of Jesus concerning family really that challenging to the status quo? Here’s what N.T. Wright says:
“In the peasant society, where family relations provide one’s basic identity, it was shocking in the extreme in the first century Jewish culture, for which the sense of familial and racial loyalty was a basic symbol of the prevailing worldview. This saying cannot but have been devastating. Jesus was proposing to treat his followers as surrogate family. This had a substantial positive result: Jesus intended his followers to inherit all the closeness and mutual obligations that belonged with family membership and a close knit family-based society. But this was not just extraordinarily challenging at a personal level. It was deeply subversive at a social, cultural, religious, and political level.”3
Yes, Jesus is teaching something here that is profoundly challenging: It is “deeply subversive at a social, cultural, religious, and political level.”
What does the family have to do with racism?
RACISM is “the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called ‘races’; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.”4
When doing the will of God becomes the criteria for membership in God’s family, it subverts traditional ideas of superiority and inferiority, inclusion and exclusion. Therefore, being part of God’s family—doing the will of God—subverts racism. No longer is the Christian permitted an attitude of inferiority or superiority toward another follower of Christ (nor any other human being) because of skin color, nationality, race or ethnicity, education or wealth, or other measure of social status.
In Galatians 3:28–29, Paul contributes to Jesus’ teaching about family. “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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Paul creates theology from the life and teachings of Jesus. Paul is describing a new kind of humanity—a new kind of family that transcends the boundaries of the bloodline family.
Paul has relativized the family—the most basic unit of social organization. In so doing, Paul also relativizes other social units and other markers of social status. This includes: skin color and race. Family name, wealth or poverty. Citizenship and nationality. Level of education. And any other source of ascribed honor or achieved honor. (See my previous post on how and why knowing Christ relativizes other forms of social status.)
It is noteworthy that in Gal 3:28–29, Paul uses the honorific ‘family language’ of Abraham. When Paul writes, “you are Abraham’s offspring”, he uses the Greek word, σπέρμα, or sperma. The ESV translates sperma as offspring; the NIV and KJV translates sperma as “seed.” Doesn’t this refer to the male “seed”—vital for creating a new life?
Paul is conveying a powerful truth about family. Being in God’s family, being in relationship to others doing the will of God (sisters and brothers)—regardless their race or other social marker—this is more vital (not less), more important (not less) than bloodline-family-relations. This family is more durable (not less). This family is eternal, in Christ the risen Lord and King.
A traditional proverb says, “Blood is thicker than water.” But according to Mat 12:46–50, Jesus is saying, Doing the will of God is thicker than blood. Here is the principle:
The ‘thickest’ unifying family dynamic available to the human race is doing the will of God together in relation to Christ.
This is another way that the Bible undermines racism.
To whom do we belong? If we do the will of God (Mat 12:46–50) in Christ (Gal 3:28–29), we belong to the family of God.
LEARN MORE: Much more could be said about this family-of-God-priority. There are difficult questions. For example, what about Christian leaders who mistreat their family because they are overcommitted to their ministry—isn’t this problematic? For additional perspectives on this, I highly recommend The Bible Project podcast, “Family of God E6 / Jesus and the Gentiles.” The entire podcast is excellent, but the discussion about Mat 12:46–50 begins at around 42 minutes.
1. Jerome Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 57.
2. These three paragraphs are largely taken from: Werner Mischke, The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World (Mission ONE, Scottsdale, AZ, 2015), 152.
3. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2), (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 278. The author of this blog post first heard this quote from N.T. Wright in the podcast “Family of God E6 / Jesus and the Gentiles” from The Bible Project. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/series/family-of-god, accessed 18 January 2021.
4. Definition by Audrey Smedley in Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism, accessed 18 January 2021.
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 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.
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.
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.
“And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever,and of his kingdom there will be no end.’”
–Luke 1:30–33 ESV
We are joining Christians all over the world in celebrating the miracle of the birth of King Jesus.
Christmas is a time to wonder. It was a divine miracle that Mary, the Jewish teenage virgin, conceived a baby boy who the angel said “will be called the Son of the Most High”. The little baby Jesus is none other than the King and Savior of the world. How can it be?!
Christmas is a time to celebrate. It is the fulfillment of Israel’s ancient story and the prophesy given to Israel’s King David (2 Sam. 7:16–17). This “Son” will reign forever, “and of his kingdom there will be no end”. All other kingdoms and earthly powers are under the ultimate rule of God. Therefore, no matter the social, political, or economic circumstances, by faith we as believers celebrate that our eternal honor and salvation is secure in King Jesus and his kingdom. Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Christmas is a time to worship. Jesus embodies beautiful humility—and regal eternal power. He is exactly the kind of Savior we need. He is the One we can relate to because of his humanity and vulnerability. He is also the One we worship—He is our Creator King and Savior—absolutely worthy of our loyalty. O come, let us adore him!
Christmas is a time for mission. As followers of Jesus, we serve in many ways with our various gifts and talents to extend the “gospel of the kingdom” to all the peoples of the earth. In fact, preaching “the gospel of the kingdom” is essential to fulfilling God’s global purpose (Matt 24:14). We want to be part of this unfolding drama—this great mission—of sharing the good news that Jesus is the King who fulfills the Bible’s ancient regal story! He is our Savior! He is the Lord!
NOTE: If you want to look up verses about the “gospel of the kingdom”, you can start here: Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12; 28:31.
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.
