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.
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.
