The First-Century Roman Imperial Cult as Historical Context for Pauline Christology

Conclusion

From the time of Alexander the Great and other Greek leaders to the Roman emperors ruling during Paul’s life, the bestowal of divine honors upon prominent leaders happened on a regular basis. Not every divine honor, however, indicated a direct equation of its recipient with absolute deity. The emperors’ ability to accept or refuse honors offered by the Senate or citizens reveals that the imperial cult honored its recipients as something less than what a monotheist would call “God.” The pattern of sharing honors with another Roman deity also indicates that the Roman imperial cult treated the emperors as something more than man, but less than absolute deity. Gradel labels this “relative divinity,” arguing that Romans viewed the emperor as a man with “divine status,” as opposed to believing him actually to be a god. Julius Caesar is the only emperor to be deified by the Senate during his lifetime; all his successors who were deified received that honor posthumously. The imperial cult was not a theological system purporting the emperor to be a god; it was a system of rituals and honors treating the emperor as one with uniquely elevated status.

This chapter explains the official development of the imperial cult in Rome itself. As noted above, the rest of the empire did not necessarily act in accordance with official decrees, and there were subtle nuances of each emperor’s acceptance and refusal of certain honors. For this reason, the next chapter will attempt to describe the unofficial practice of emperor worship in province, towns, and homes across the empire. Visualizing the common man’s experience with emperor worship will provide a clearer understanding of the historical context in which Paul communicated the humility and majesty of Christ.

Conclusion

The imperial cult was inescapable in Paul’s world. Its traditions were carried out in private homes and based on common household rituals. Its celebrations and sacrifices littered the calendars of cities and provinces across the empire and its temples embodied the majesty ascribed to the emperor. Though the official position paid honor to deceased emperors, rituals performed outside of the city limits of Rome served to honor the living emperor. The people who heard and read Paul’s letters certainly would have been familiar with the rituals and words of the imperial cult. The remainder of this dissertation will compare words and phrases from the imperial cult that also appear in Paul’s letters, seeking to understand how the original recipients would have understood those words in their context.

Conclusion

Both the imperial cult and Paul’s epistles use the titles “god” and “Son of God.” The ways in which their respective uses overlap, however, are few. Both use the title θεός to communicate a position elevated above ordinary humanity and a measure of authority that matches that position. Both use the phrase υἱὸς θεοῦ with at least a distant connection to the ideals of unity and truth.

The differences between the meanings invested in these titles by their respective users weigh heavily enough to preclude the conclusion that Paul borrowed them from the imperial cult. For the Romans, “god” was a relative label, indicating a measure of respect and reverence without necessarily carrying the life–and-death theological weight that Christianity invests in that title. For Paul, “God” is the one who “made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth” (Ac. 17.24) and identifying Jesus as “God” meant that in Jesus “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2.9). In Paul’s writings, this title is invested with rich implications of a unique kind of being, an exclusive position, and a spiritual nature. The Romans in no way assigned such traits to their emperors. Paul recognized that human leaders usurped the title “god” and affirmed the exclusivity and ultimate victory of the one true God against all adversaries.

The title “son of God” functioned differently in each usage. For the Romans, this title linked a ruling emperor to a deified predecessor, while maintaining a healthy distance from directly calling the current emperor divine. For Paul, this title formed a theological equals sign between the words “Jesus” and “God.” Identifying Jesus as God’s Son communicated that he shared essential characteristics of the Father’s nature and that they shared an intimate familial relationship. Beyond this obvious difference, the context of Pauline usage of this title differs greatly from the imperial cult. While the Romans used this phrase only to elevate the emperor, Paul used to it credit his spiritual life to his intimate personal relationship with Jesus. He also used this title to present the resurrection as the chief proof that Jesus is the pre-appointed messianic king of the Old Testament, a meaning entirely absent from the imperial cult. Paul also linked the title “Son of God” with God’s Spirit. No such theology of the Trinity existed in Roman emperor worship.

The dissimilarities between Paul and the imperial cult stand in such sharp relief that it is impossible to conclude that Paul modeled his use of the titles “God” and “Son of God” after the imperial cult in any way. The similarities between the titles are so slight that they can be easily seen as unavoidable similarities that almost any two systems of worship would share. Paul’s foundation for these titles is the Old Testament, not the imperial cult.

Conclusion

Titles relating to authority play a major role in the comparison of imperial cult terminology and Pauline Christology. From κύριος, the most prominent title of authority, to the range of synonyms in the “principalities and powers” word group, these titles indicate ownership of possessions and authority over subjects. The ways in which they were used in their respective contexts, however, grew quite dissimilar. The emperors used the title “lord” from the time of Nero on and, by it, invoked the image of a master over a slave. This meaning was initially foreign to the imperial cult because it reminded Romans more of the old dictators than the new, balanced Senate. As that association died down, the title “lord” became acceptable in the imperial cult. Pauline usage began with the same semantic foundation. References to Jesus as κύριος in Paul’s letters reveal that his speech and actions are authoritative, that he receives acts of submission, and that other legitimate authorities derive their power from him. Paul’s foundation for this title, however, has little to do with the imperial cult. The chronology makes any claim of Pauline dependence on emperor worship difficult to maintain. Paul was already in the practice of calling Jesus κύριος before Nero acceded and used the title “lord.” Paul’s foundation for this title lies in his Old Testament knowledge. A series of Old Testament quotations linking Jesus with Yahweh communicate several truths about Jesus that far outstrip what the imperial cult intended to communicate with this title. By using those Yahweh quotations with reference to Jesus, Paul ascribed to him the ability to deliver his people, omniscience and wisdom, moral authority, sovereignty, and fame. Not only does Paul base his use of κύριος on a different foundation from the imperial cult, he also takes its extended meaning in a different direction. In Romans and the Thessalonian epistles, Paul uses the title κύριος Ἰησοῦς to predict Jesus’ return with its hope for his people and vengeance over his enemies. No evidence points to a Roman equivalent of this eschatological use of the title “lord.”

The words in Paul’s “principalities and powers” groups bear significance, not because they are used for Jesus or for the emperor, but because they reveal an essential aspect of Paul’s theology of human and supernatural authorities. Since the imperial cult put the emperor in a category above normal men, the relative authority structure Paul presents with these words has direct bearing on the relationship between Pauline Christology and the imperial cult in ancient Rome. Paul uses these words primarily with reference to angelic and demonic powers and secondarily with reference to human leaders. Regardless of the nature of the referent, Paul’s theological point is always that Jesus stands above all other authority figures. His logical argument moves from Jesus’ authority over supernatural beings and implies that he has just as much authority over mere humans, including the emperor.

In titles and words of authority, Paul’s primary foundation is the Old Testament. Some similarity of words and meaning exists, but Paul uses κύριος with a different background and communicates Jesus’ authority with much more nuance and clarity than the imperial cult did for the emperor.

Conclusion

The titles σωτήρ and εὐαγγέλιον, along with their cognates, are shared by Paul’s epistles and the Roman imperial cult. At times, understanding the Roman ideas behind these words helps in the interpretation of Paul’s letters. Cultural background for σωτήρ provides a starting place for understanding Jesus’ work of delivering his people from danger. Understanding the function of the imperial εὐαγγέλιον as an accession announcement sheds light on Paul’s teaching on obedience to the gospel.

The components of meaning shared by the imperial cult and Paul’s letters do not provide adequate grounds for interpreting Paul’s use of these titles as politically charged propaganda. The eternal salvation that Jesus provides does not conflict with the emperor’s temporal salvation. The good news about Jesus does not present him as a competitor to Caesar’s rule, but as a sacrificial provider of spiritual benefits. Paul’s use of both word groups is clearly in Old Testament prophecies that identify Yahweh as savior and as subject of good news. Thus Paul’s use of the σωτήρ and εὐαγγέλιον word groups serves to identify Jesus with Yahweh, not to position him as a challenger to the emperor.

Conclusion

Paul’s use of εἰρήνη and ἀσφάλεια in Christological contexts reveals a different view of peace and security than the one offered by the Roman Empire. The peace that Paul ascribes to Jesus is not military or political; rather, it begins with the creation of peace between a sinner and God, then fosters peaceful relationships among believers. Imperial propaganda emphasized peace from hostile armies and criminals; Jesus’ peace does not supplant the safe conditions created by wise imperial rule. Furthermore, Paul’s quotations from the prophets and greetings using shalom indicate that the Old Testament provides the primary context for interpreting these words in his letters.

Paul’s sole use of ἀσφάλεια follows no pattern in imperial usage because no such imperial pattern appears to have existed. Ἀσφάλεια receives close attention because of its collocation with εἰρήνη in I Thessalonians 5.3. Contrary to some contemporary authors, that phrase does not appear to function as an imperial slogan in either Greek or Latin literature. While peace and security both played a role in imperial propaganda, their combined occurrence in this verse does not necessarily constitute a “frontal attack” on the emperor. On the contrary, in Pauline usage, these words operate in spiritual realms and present no overt challenge to the Roman emperor.

Conclusion

The words ἐπιφάνεια (and cognates) and παρουσία both refer to one’s presence, often used of a dignitary or leader. Ἐπιφάνεια emphasizes the appearance of the one present, referring either to the external appearance of the subject or to the act of his appearing. Παρουσία emphasizes the physical presence of its subject, referring either to his state of being present or to his act of arriving. Both these words appear infrequently with imperial referents and both play an important part in Paul’s theology of Jesus’ return.

Paul’s use of ἐπιφάνεια runs parallel to certain secular uses. As a general or leader making an ἐπιφάνεια often brought deliverance and relief to his subjects, Paul anticipates the ἐπιφάνεια of Jesus as an event at which he brings deliverance and relief to his people (II Tim. 4.8; Tit. 2.13). He also predicts that Jesus will prevail with military victory at his appearance (II Thess. 2.8). Paul is not bound merely to parrot Greco-Roman usage, however. He uses ἐπιφάνεια to communicate the accountability that God’s servants will experience at Jesus’ appearance. This theme is strong in the teachings of Jesus, but does not appear frequently in Greek literature. Paul exalts the Father for his sovereign control over the timing of Jesus’ ἐπιφάνεια. While a Roman official’s appearance may have been governed by his superior, the emperor would not have answered to anyone else.

Paul’s use of παρουσία likewise bears both similarities to and differences from the Roman usage. Like ἐπιφάνεια, παρουσία appears to take its basic Pauline meaning from the arrivals of dignitaries in the Greek and Roman empires. The eager anticipation that he conveys to his readers reflects the honor of a Roman city visited by the emperor or one of his emissaries. Paul calls his readers to look for Jesus’ παρουσία during difficulties and to live so that he will find them obedient at his arrival. Unlike the normal Roman use, Paul connects the παρουσία of Jesus to the beginning of unfettered enjoyment of resurrection life for his people. The arrival of Jesus also marks the completion of God’s sanctifying work in his people’s lives. Neither of these ideas have any counterpart in secular or imperial cult usage of παρουσία.

Both ἐπιφάνεια and παρουσία have wide ranges of non-imperial meaning. Even in the sense that most resembles imperial use, each word appears with multiple non-imperial referents in Greek literature. Since these words did not belong exclusively to the imperial cult, Paul’s use of them ought not be construed as subversive or anti-imperial.

Conclusion

Paul regularly describes Jesus with words and titles that also serve to honor the emperor in first-century Greek literature. In some of these parallels, the Greco-Roman use of the title provides helpful background to Pauline use. In other comparisons, both Paul and the imperial cult draw from a common use of the title, but develop divergent meanings in their own contexts. In yet other cases, Paul and the imperial cult use the same words in the same way, but present their honorees as rulers of differing spheres. None of the words studied in this dissertation appear to be subversive or anti-imperial in Paul’s letters. Paul’s letters certainly set Jesus as the Lord of a higher realm than the Roman Empire, and his commitment to Jesus’ exclusive deity certainly precluded participation in emperor-centered idolatry. These implications of the lordship of Jesus, however, do not constitute a rhetorical assault on the imperial government or a call to political revolution. The words of Modica and McKnight conclude this study well: “The New Testament conclusion that Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not, is not a direct assault on the Roman Empire or even a veiled attempt to usurp it. Rather, to claim that Jesus is Lord is to place oneself in the servitude of a radically different kingdom—one which has no equal, now and forever.” [Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 214]