Skip to main content

Christ vs. Caesar?

One of the hottest trends in New Testament Studies is to see the gospel proclamation in the New Testament as being explicitly anti-imperial. Jesus was called 'lord' and 'savior' in the New Testament. The proclamation about him is called, 'the gospel.' Interestingly, Caesar was also called 'savior' and 'lord.' And proclamations about him were sometimes called 'gospel.' Does this (and other evidence) suggest, though, that the gospel was explicitly anti-imperial?

Not to be a downer, but I think some of the enthusiasm about the anti-imperial nature of the gospel should be tempered. That's not to say that there's no critique of the Roman empire present, but, in my opinion, two things mitigate against this now very popular understanding of the background against which the gospel is supposedly best understood.

First is that the book of Acts repeatedly stresses that the gospel isn't anti-imperial. Notice in many cases, blame for being driven out of the city is placed on some Jews who stirred up trouble. There's also the notable case in Corinth where the magistrate declares that Paul's teaching was not seditious (Acts 18:1-14); I could bring up other instances from Acts as well. Some suggest that Philippians should be understood an anti-imperialist letter, but I don't see how that does justice to the text. Even at first glance, how could Paul be so confident of his acquittal before Caesar if his gospel was an attack on him (Phil. 1:19-26)?

What, too, do we make of the trial and crucifixion narratives? Specifically I have in mind Matthew 27:11-26. It seems obvious that even while Jesus admits to Pilate that he is king of the Jews, Pilate doesn't see this act as seditious!

I don't want to swing too far the other way and say that there is no critique of the Roman empire and Caesar in the New Testament or in a correct understanding of the gospel. I just do not see it as a primary category for aiding us in understanding the gospel or the early Christian movement. I believe that the Old Testament still forms the primary source from which the early church took its terms for proclaiming the truth about Jesus.


  1. Bro, you're speaking my language here. I've toyed with writing about this for a while, but haven't gotten around to it. I agree that there may be a certain anti-Imperial element to the NT writings, but to see it as a dominant theme is reading far too much into it.

    Have you heard the debate from the SBL meeting a couple years back between John Barclay and N T Wright over this? Barclay, in my opinion, knocks some huge holes in Christ vs Caesar argument. Wright's response did enough to salvage seeing some of the anti-imperial rhetoric in Paul's letters, but not nearly enough to outdo Barclay's case.

    For what it's worth, I read from someone who was present at the debate that it was the only time he had ever seen Wright flustered. When you listen to the audio, you can understand why.

  2. I have not heard the audio before. I'll dig around and see if I can find it. Thanks!

    A helpful book for me was Christ and Caesar by Seyoon Kim. He overstates his case at times, but he does bring up some helpful critiques.


    Here is a link to the audio. Scroll down and you'll find it.

  4. Sorry, I don't know how to do a link on these comments. I really need to get with the techno-times.

  5. Thanks for the link. It looks like there's other good stuff on that page too.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…