God Man V Man Gods

Abstract
Inscriptions predating Christianity both describe the Emperor using

titles later employed to describe Jesus, and couch the Emperor’s
role in similar terminology to that employed by the early church.
What are we to make of such commonality between the terminology
used to describe the Roman Emperor and the terms the Bible uses
to describe the supreme Lordship of Christ? Worship of the Roman
Emperor through the Roman Imperial Cult was an empire-wide
reality confronting the first Christians, living under Roman rule, as
they approached life in a new empire under a new king.
Introduction
God manifest. A god, and son of God. The Lord and saviour of the
world. The resurrected God. The subject of the ευαγγελιον. For
Christians this is language that describes the work, purpose and
person of Jesus Christ. For first century Roman citizens these titles
were shared with the emperors of the Julio-Claudian (49BC–68AD)
and subsequent eras.
A study of Roman history charts the development of the Imperial

Cult as Rome’s predominant religious and political reality. The study
of epigraphic sources, and first and second century political
commentators sheds new light on the intentions of the writers of the
Bible, especially Paul, with regards to this political milieu. We will
examine the competing claims of the empire or Rome, and the
empire of Jesus through an examination of these sources.
We will consider the hypothesis that the gospel writers, especially

Matthew and Luke, framed their accounts as a challenge to Roman
authority, and that Paul, in his epistles and accounts of his ministry
in Acts, did not advocate conformity and obedience to the imperial
Roman hegemony, but rather a realignment of loyalties to Christ
and an accompanying repudiation of all other lords, including the
Emperor.
We will analyse the significance of language shared by the gospel

writers and heralds of the Roman emperor, arguing that while the
apostles’ proclamation of the ευαγγελιον of Jesus employed
politically loaded language, and titles familiar to first century
readers, this did not necessarily constitute a direct challenge to
Rome’s authority because such use of such terminology was
unavoidable. We will, however, conclude that it was likely perceived
as a challenge by Roman citizens participating the Imperial Cult.
We will then consider the problems that converting to this new way
of life brought for first century followers of the way. Concluding that
such a radical realignment of fidelity was a guaranteed path to
persecution, suffering and rejection by the empire.
Tracing the Development of the Imperial Cult

and use of Divine Titles through primary
sources from the Julio-Claudian Era
The concept of resurrection was foreign to Roman belief during the
Republican Era, but as the empire’s boundaries expanded, the
beliefs of conquered nations were assimilated into the melting pot
of Roman religiosity. Two such beliefs were the notion of
resurrection, and the divinity of rulers. Traditional Roman theology
saw death and apotheosis (resurrection) as the path to divinity, this
contrasted with Greek theology, which treated rulers as gods within
their lifetimes.1
This theological disparity placed emperors in a difficult position

when dealing with emissaries from the east and west of the empire.2
This tension was soon resolved, as the cult became an important
mechanism of control for the emperor,3 and the worship of the living
emperor (and his deified ancestors) quickly became a normative
component of the Roman religious experience.4
1 Novak, R.M, ‘The Worship of the Roman Emperor,’ Christianity and the
Roman Empire – Background Texts (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International), 2001, p 267
2 Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1984, p 75
3 Wright, NT, ‘Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,’ Paul and Politics:
Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed Horsley R.A, (Harrisburg:
Trinity), 2000, p 161, Wright suggests it was worship, and not military
might, that allowed Rome to control its vast empire.
4 Gradel, I, ‘Heavenly Honours Decreed by the Senate,’ Emperor Worship
and the Roman Imperial Cult, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2002, pp
260-265, see also Pachis, P, “Manufacturing Religion: The Case of Demetra
Karapophoros in Ephesos” Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting,
November 21-25, 2008.
Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar was the first deified Roman emperor, his apotheosis
was legislated by the senate,5 but the process of his deification
began while he was alive. Two years before his death he was
honoured with a statue bearing the inscription “God made manifest”
in the Greek city of Pharsalus.6 Another statue with an inscription
“To the Conquering God” was placed in the temple of Quirinius.
Coinage from the time also bears witness to this developing notion
of his divinity. A denarius from shortly before his death features the
inscription “Clementia Caesar” and the image of a temple of
Clementia and Caesar, a temple that was apparently never built.7
Augustus
Augustus engaged in a sophisticated campaign to claim divine
authority, while habitually declining divine honours in order to
appear humble. The symbolic appearance of humility was important
for Augustus, as demonstrated by his handing of power back to the
senate, only to have them immediately confer the power back to
him, for life, and give him the title “Augustus,” as recorded in his
Res Gestae,8 a regularly updated list of his achievements.9
First century writers Livy, Suetonius and Dio Cassius, link the title
Augustus with the role of augur, a key religious and political role in
the first century.10
5 Novak, R.M, ‘The Worship of the Roman Emperor,’ Christianity and the
International), p 267
6 Kreitzer, L, ‘Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,’ Biblical Archaeologist.
53 December, 1990, pp 211- 217, p 212
7 Kreitzer, L, ‘Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,’ p 212
8 Res Gestae, from The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, p 49, “In
return for this service of mine, by senatorial decree I was called
Augustus… After that time I excelled all men by my authority, but I had no
more official power than other men who were my colleagues in each
magistracy.”
9 Gradel, I Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, p 280 suggests the Res
Gestae should be understood as a supplement to Augustus’ will and
essentially as his claims to divine office.
A linen breastplate in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, described by
Livy in Ab Urbe Condita, bore an inscription naming Augustus
Caesar as the “founder and restorer of all temples.”
Augustus synergised the spheres of church and state by taking the

religious roles of augur, and Pontifex Maximus. 11 His assumption of
religious roles was a step towards obtaining Pax Deorum, the peace
of the gods.
Vergil’s Aeneid describes Augustus as the founder of a golden age,

heading for divinity.12 This view of Augustus as the harbinger of a
golden age is corroborated by documentary evidence, including a
decree from the Asian League following a twenty year competition
to find the most appropriate recognition for the emperor, which
describes Augustus as: filled with virtue for the service of mankind,
a saviour, who brings peace, whose arrival surpassed the
anticipation of good news (ευαγγελιον), outstripping those who
came before and leaving no hope of anybody greater in the future.13
The letter that won the competition, from the Roman proconsul to
the Asian League in 9 BC claims the “birthday of our most divine
Caesar” as the “beginning of all things” because Augustus “restored
stability in a time of disarray” and “gave a new look to the entire
world,” which led to a reconfiguration of the Roman calendar.14 This
10 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ The Imperial Cult and
the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in
Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian, (Leiden:Brill),
1999, pp 24-52
11 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ pp 24-52
12 Aeneid, lines 6,791-6,794, Brent, A, p 58, “This is the man, this is he
whom you have often heard promised, Augustus Caesar, son of God, who
shall found the golden age once more over the fields where Saturn once
reigned.”
13 Inscription of the Asian League, 9 BC, Lines 31-41, 44, 47-53, from
Harden, The Imperial Cult in the Roman Empire and Galatia, 2008
14Letter to the Asian League (Priene: 9 BC), from Harrison, J.R, ‘The
Augustan Age of Grace,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 50.1, 1999, pp 79-91, at pp 85-
86
competition followed the normative pattern of imperial recognition.
It was most often the result of provinces and cities competing to
glorify the emperor, rather than the initiative of the emperor
himself.15
Augustus also assumed control of Rome’s prophetic schools16 and

was able to collate, and edit prophetic expectation of his rule.17 He
was prophet, priest and king, and from there it was only a small
step to divinity.
A statue of Augustus dressed as Apollo, next door to the newly

dedicated Temple of Apollo in Rome, indicates that as far back as 28
BC Augustus was manoeuvring public perception of himself towards
that notion.18
A fusing of Roman virtues (peace, fortune, providence, etc) in the

person of the Emperor led to the fusing of the cults of the empire
(Roma), and emperor. A coin, from 19 BC links worship of the
personified Rome, with worship of the Emperor Augustus – the coin
is from Pergamum, the first province to build a temple to
Augustus.19 Augustus also embodied the spes (hope) of the Roman
Empire – another Roman virtue that had essentially been
epigraphically and numismatically dormant until his reign.20 The
office, and person, of the emperor was now a sacramental sign of
15 Zanker, P, ‘The Power of Images,’ Paul and Empire: Religion and Power
in Roman Imperial Society, ed. Horsley, R.A, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press)
1997, p 76
16 Res Gestae (7.3) “I was Pontifex Maximus, augur, quindecimvir of
sacred affairs, septimvir for religious banquets, Arval Brother, fellow of the
society of Titius, fetial priest…” From The Roman Empire: Augustus to
Hadrian, Documents of Greece and Rome, Edited and Translated by Sherk,
R.K, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1988, p 43 – the
quindecimvir was the keeper of the Sibylline (prophetic) books.
17 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ p 59, this editing
involved the burning of sibyllines he couldn’t apply to himself.
18 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ p 60
19 Kreitzer, L, Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,’ p 214
20 Clark, M.E, ‘Spes in the Early Imperial Cult: “The Hope of Augustus”,’
Numen Vol XXX, Fasc 1, 1983, pp 80-105
the Golden Age, and the emperor was both priest and god of his
own cult.21
When Augustus took the title of Pontifex Maximus in 13 BC he

established the practice of swearing oaths to his genius, this
followed the senate’s decree in 30 BC that every public and private
banquet feature a libation to his genius.22 In 7 BC he established the
Lares Compitiales, featuring the image of his genius alongside
images of other gods.
Fishwick (1969) discussing the distinction between genius and

numen, erroneously concludes that the emperors were never
deified, though the public possibly saw them as gods, arguing from
silence that nobody is recorded praying to the emperor for health
and treating ascriptions of divinity as non-literal honorifics.23 This
argument would seem to fail on the basis of epigraphic evidence,
and the decree for oaths and libations to be focused on the imperial
genius (a problem that confronts the first Christians in Corinth).24
Fishwick, in a later work, traces Augustus’ manipulation of the
imperial cult as a political tool.25 Fishwick takes epigraphic evidence
at face value concluding that the cult was a provincial phenomenon
discouraged in Rome.26 As we will see this undersells the important
role the cult played in the stability of imperial rule.

22 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ p 61, Brent suggests
that this, along with a renewed emphasis on ancestor worship, was a key
step towards the empire wide imperial cult.
23 Fishwick, D, ‘Genius and Numen,’ Harvard Theological Review, 62 no 3,
1969, p 356-367
24 Discussed below, but see
25 Fishwick, D, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler
Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Vol I, 2nd Edition,
(Leiden: Brill) 1993, pp 73-82
26 Fishwick, D, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, p 72 – “Provincial cult,
where alone the state might be involved, was carefully focused on Dea
Roma alongside Augustus himself, but otherwise direct cult of the
emperor was avoided in Rome and municipal and private cult were left to
local or personal initiative; there was no organized, universal religion of a
grand design.”
Temples of Augustus from throughout the empire, including in the
west,27 have been dated as early as 27 BC.28 One such inscription
puts Augustus alongside the gods, describing the “sacrificing of
oxen to Imperator Caesar Augustus, and to his two sons, and to the
other gods.”29 Zanker (1997) contends that by the end of Augustus
reign that “there was probably not a single Roman city in Italy or the
western provinces” without some form of imperial cultic structure.30
The imperial cult emerged from its chrysalis in the lifetime of

Augustus, and like a chess grandmaster he manoeuvred its pieces
so that upon his death it was inevitable that he would join his
adoptive father in state sanctioned divinity. 31 Worship of a living
emperor’s numen almost guaranteed their apotheosis.32
The ceremonial exaltation of Augustus as he passed into divinity at
his death caused Tacitus to remark in the Annals of Rome: “No
honours were any longer reserved for the gods, when he wanted to
be worshipped with temples and cult images by flamines and
priests.”33By the time of his death the imperial cult was a bona fide
institution extending to the imperial family.34
27 Zanker, P, ‘The Power of Images,’ p 77, Zanker describes an Imperial

Cultic temple and festival held in 27 BCE and announced in Rome, to the
approval of the emperor.
28 The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, pp
11-16
29 Hodot in the J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 10 (1982) 166 Cumae, The
Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, p 16
30 Zanker, P, ‘The Power of Images,’ p 77
31 Novak, Christianity and the Roman Empire, p 267
32 Turcan, R, The Gods of Ancient Rome, trans, Nevill, A, (New York:
Routledge), 2000, orig 1998, p 138
33 Tacitus, Ann. 1. 10. 5, Gradel, I, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion,
p 276
34 Winter, B.W, Seek the Welfare of the City. Christians as Benefactors
and Citizens, First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World
(Michigan: Eerdmans), 1994, p 124.
Tiberius
Tiberius was a zealous campaigner for the divinity of Augustus, but
when it came to his own divinity, both within his lifetime, and after
his death, he was forwards in going backwards.
Though he accepted one temple in his honour he felt compelled to

publicly defend that decision on the basis of Augustan precedent, 35
and as a result of zeal for Augustus to refuse all future honours.36
Tacitus’ Annals of Rome records him declining honours and wishing

that rather than divinity he might have “a quiet mind, gifted with
the understanding of law human, and divine” and that on his death
he might be thought of kindly.37
The suspicious reaction to Tiberius’ “persistent contemptuous”

rejection of divine honours, in contrast to Augustus’ hopeful pursuit
of posthumous divinity, is also recorded by Tacitus.38
35 Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome 4.37-38, in Novak, R.M, Christianity

and the Roman Empire – Background Texts (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International), pp 267-268, “Since the deified Augustus had not forbidden
the construction of a temple at Pergamum to himself and the City of
Rome, observing as I do his every action and word as law, I followed the
precedent already sealed by his approval, with all the more readiness that
with worship of myself was associated veneration of the senate.”
International), pp 267-268, “...to be consecrated in the image of deity
through all the provinces would be vanity and arrogance and the honour
paid to Augustus will soon be a mockery, if it is vulgarised by promiscuous
experiments in flattery.”
International), pp 267-268
International), pp 267-268 – “…an attitude by some interpreted as
modesty, by many as self-distrust, and by a few as degeneracy of soul:
“The best of men,” they argued, “desired the greatest heights: so
Hercules and Liber among the Greeks, and among ourselves Quirinus, had
been added to the number of the gods. The better way had been that of
Augustus – who hoped!”
Tiberius’ wishes regarding his own posthumous divinity were
perhaps understood in the light of his speech, upon his death, when
the process of apotheosis was normally ratified by the senate, and
despite attempts by Caligula to procure his granduncle’s divinity,
the senate opposed his deification.39
His adopted son, Germanicus (father of Caligula), repudiated divinity

by association in his time in Egypt in 18-19AD. A papyrus scroll from
the time contains his threat to no longer appear before them,
declining their “odious shouts,” as appropriate to the “true saviour
only and the benefactor of the entire race of men, my father.”40
Gaius Caligula
Caligula, like his granduncle, was denied apotheosis by the senate.
He was the first of the emperors to overtly promote his divine
status. 41
Suetonius, in his second century “Life of Caligula” records details of

his personal campaign for divinity which involved placing his head
on ancient statues of the gods, sitting as a living god within a
temple, and creating his own temple with priests.42
An inscription from his reign reveals his personal campaign for

divinity, in the context of providing recognition for the “bodyguard
kings” of his provinces, the inscription describes his friends’ inability

40 Documents 320, Papyrus from Egypt, The Roman Empire: Augustus to
Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, p 61, also Inscriptions of the Roman
Empire. AD 14-117, edited by B. H. Warmington, B. H. and S. J. Miller
(London: The London Association of Classical Teachers, 1996), p 11
41 McLaren, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ Journal for the Study of the New
Testament, 27.3 (2005), pp 257-278, p 274
42 Suetonius, Life of Caligula, 22.2-3, in Novak, R.M, Christianity and the
International), pp 268-269
to find an appropriate response to “the gracious act of such a great
god.”43
Caligula famously planned to set up statues to himself on the altar

of the temple in Jerusalem. Both Philo and Josephus devote
significant attention to reporting this incident, from their accounts it
seems that a persistent outcry from the Jews was enough to see the
procedure aborted.44
By the reign of Caligula the ruler cult was an overt method

employed by Emperors to maintain power and control of their
subjects.
Claudius
Claudius, in a letter to the Alexandrians, acknowledged the city’s
piety towards the Augusti, and, with a show of humility, accepted
the honours they had directed to him, he allowed the Alexandrians
to venerate his birthday, and “reluctantly”45 let them erect statues
of himself in Alexandria and Rome, he granted them a “Claudian
tribe,” and Egyptian styled grove, but rejected their offer of a
temple and priests.46 In return for these honourifics he granted them
citizenship, and all benefits that they had enjoyed from the time of
Augustus. 47
43 SIG 798, Cyzicus, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and
trans. Shrek, R.K, p 79 - “He began from that time on to lay claim to divine
majesty; for after giving orders that such statutes of the gods as were
especially famous for their sanctity or their artistic merit, including that of
Jupiter of Olympia, should be brought from Greece in order to remove
their heads and put his own in their place… He also set up a special
temple to his own godhead with priests and with victims of the choicest
kind.“
44 McLaren, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ p 266
45 “Of the two golden statues… even when I wished to reject the idea for
fear of seeming to be quite arrogant, shall be erected at Rome, and the
others shall be carried in the manner you requested…”
46 But a priest for me and erection of temples I reject, not wishing to be
offensive to the men of my time and judging that temples and such things
to the gods alone should be reserved and granted every age.
47 Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, Papyrus found at Philadelphia in
the Fayum, Egypt. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans.
A plinth of a statue of Claudius read “the saviour of all mankind,”48
and in the announcement of the arrival of Nero describes the
departing Claudius as the “manifest god, Caesar.”49
Nero
Nero was posthumously refused divinity by the Roman Senate, and
thus no coins display his apotheosis.50 Like his ancestors he initially
declined cultic offerings, while simultaneously awarding benefits to
those offering them. In a papyrus scroll sent from Nero to the
province of Egypt he declined a temple in his honour, sent back a
golden crown and assured the province it would keep the benefits
given to them by his ancestors.51
Nero’s designation of tax-exempt status for the province of Achaia is

an example of the exchange of titles for benefits, and evidence that
he pursued recognition as a deity.
An inscription from Boeotia contains Nero’s decree, freeing “noble

minded Greece” from taxation for “its goodwill and piety” towards
himself, and the Achaean response calling Nero “lord of the whole
world.”52
Refusing Divine Titles and the importance of the

Imperial Cult
The foundation of the cult was laid with Julius Caesar’s deification,
and the parameters of the cult were established by Augustan
precedent rather than by formal edict. This provided flexibility in
accepting or refusing divine offers throughout the empire.53
Refusing cultic offerings was a performance of humility orchestrated

for the populace. The emperor had to maintain the legal and social
façade of being a citizen of the empire, in a privileged position by
Shrek, R.K, pp 83-86

the will of the people.54 He was trapped between consolidating his
position within Roman cultural mores,55 and being culturally
sensitive to the Hellenistic segment of the empire.
Glorification of the emperor was a form of political currency, or a

system of exchange whereby cities and provinces curried favour
with the Roman emperor.56 Price (1984), in examining a cultic
offering to Augustus from the city of Sardis,57 notes cultic offerings
were accompanied by requests for the emperor to act as
benefactor, which were often granted.58
48 Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles While ‘Declining’ New Temples,’

Sharing the Throne of God: Imperial Cultic Activities and Early Christian
Responses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), forthcoming, Harrison, J.R, ‘Paul
and the Imperial Gospel at Thessoloniki,’ JSNT 25 1, 2002, pp 71-96, p 81
describes a statue inscription which reads “Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Sebastos Gemanicus god manifest (θεον επιφανή), saviour (σωτήρα) of
our people too.”
49 Draft of a Proclamation of Nero as emperor (Papyrus from Oxyrhynchus
in Egypt), The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek,
R.K, pp 102-103
51 Greek papyrus from the Arsonoite Nome, Egypt, The Roman Empire:
Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, p 103
52 Nero Liberates the Province of Greece (AD 67), Marble stele containing
a speech of Nero, discovered in Boeotia, The Roman Empire: Augustus to
Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, pp 110-112, It also names him “father
of his country,” “a benefactor of Greece” while dedicating an altar
conflating Nero and Zeus inscribed “To Zeus the Deliverer, Nero forever.”
Statues of Nero were then placed in other temples so that “our city might
seem to have fulfilled every honour and act of piety toward the house of
our lord Augustus Nero.”
53 McLaren, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ p 275, also, the case of Tiberius
declining temples on the basis of Augustan precedent would seem to bear
this out.
54 Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1984, p 73
55 Particularly under the early emperors where memory of the republic
lingered.
56 Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power, p 65
57 IGR IV 1756 = Sardis VII I 8, Sardis sought approval to erect a statue of
his son in his temple. His approval of this request is recorded in this
inscription.
58 Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power, pp 66-71
It is an oversimplification of a delicate political construction to view
the process as an exchange of goods for worship rendered. It was
important for both parties that these traditionally Greek cultic
exchanges continue under Imperial rule.59 It was also important,
from a traditional Roman perspective, for the emperor to maintain
the appearance of ordinary citizenship.60 These socio-political
complexities, and the need to maintain an air of benevolence in
imperial transactions,61 led to what Price calls the ‘sincere fiction of
disinterested exchange.’62
Winter (forthcoming) suggests that even when offers to construct

imperial temples were declined by emperors they were still
constructed in their honour.63 Oakes suggests inscriptions recording
cultic offerings were used to enhance the city’s imperial standing
and were occasionally prone to hyperbole (for example when calling
for unilateral conduct from an entire city).64
The cult began almost instantaneously in the Roman east,65 and was
eventually spread throughout the empire,66 and demographically
diverse.67 Religion and politics were not separate spheres in Rome,
they were synonymous, the imperial cult was not on the sidelines,
nor was it simply political window dressing.68

61 It could not be the case that a deposit of imperial worship was
automatically met with reward.
63 Winter, B.W, Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles while Declining New
Temples,’ Sharing the Throne of God: Imperial Cultic Activities and Early
Christian Responses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), forthcoming, p 7
64 Oakes, P, ‘Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1
Thessalonians and Philippians,’ JSNT 273 (2005) 301-322, p 312
65 Winter, B.W, ‘The Imperial Cult,’ The Book of Acts in its First Century
Settings: Vol 2: Graeco Roman Settings, ed Gill, D.W.J and Gempf, C,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1994, pp 93-103
67 Oakes, P, ‘Re-mapping the Universe,’ p 311, Price, S.R.F, Rituals and
Power, pp. 107-108, it was not just the realm of the wealthy or powerful
The birth of the Imperial Cult at the ludi saeculares of 13 BC was a
political and religious reformation.69 The ruler cult was more than
means to facilitate efficient government,70 a methodology of social
control,71 the legitimisation of rule,72 or the axiomatic result of
holding power.73 The cult, diplomacy and politics were essentially a
triumvirate of tools that “constructed the reality of the Roman
empire.”74
The cult, through civic distributions of food, and entertainment,

provided the rich fabric of Roman civic life and contributed to the
growth of the empire,75 an inscription details a series of imperial
cultic distributions in Galatia during the reign of Tiberius.76 It
integrated the religious, political, and commercial aspects of city life
into one system.77 Cultic temples were geographically located in
positions that reflected the cult’s prominence.78
The veneration of men who became gods was the stitching that held
together the fabric of life in the first century Roman Empire;

70 Price , S.R.F, Rituals and Power, p 239
75 Mitchell, S, Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press), 1995, pp 108-117
76 This inscription goes on to list several similar distributions from a
variety of cultic priests, Mitchell, S, p 108, Inscription on the left anta of a
temple in Ancyra – OGIS 533, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian,
Documents of Greece and Rome, Edited and Translated by Sherk, R.K pp
73-74 – “…those who were priests of the god Augustus and of the goddess
Roma. In the governorship of ------, son of King Brigatos, gave a public
banquet, distributed olive oil for four months, presented public spectacles,
gave a show of thirty pairs of gladiators and a hunt of bulls and wild
animals.”
77 Hardin, J.K Galatians and the Imperial Cult (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008), pp 32-37.
78 Hardin, J.K, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, p 31, Winter, B.W, Seek the
Welfare of the City, p 127, Mitchell, S, Anatolia, p 107
stitching that was torn asunder for the first Christians by the
competing, and similar claims of an alternate king.
The Man Gods

Winter (2010) and Gradel (2002) explore the significance of the
Latin terminology of divinity when assessing the divinity of
emperors. The Latin words divus (a deified human) and deus (an
eternal God) are both translated θεος in Greek. This presented a
challenge for identifying the theological category in which to
understand the imperial claims to divinity. Winter, following Wardle
(2002) suggests Caesar was described as a divus because he was a
man who been attributed divine status by law.79 Wardle suggests
this decision was both theological and philological,80 but mostly
political.81
Contra Wardle and Winter, Gradel suggests that divus traditionally

described eternal gods. He cites the lack of a similar title for
Hercules and Romulus (both state gods who had once been human),
and the dying words of Vespian: “Vae, puto dues fio” (I think I am
becoming a god), as evidence for a reverse understanding of the
nature of divinity.82 He acknowledges that the application of the
terminology to the divinity of dead emperors changed the meaning,
that for Varro a divus was a deus who had always been divine, and
men who were made divine upon death were deus. Gradel argues
that as the ruler cult developed the place of the divine, but
departed, emperors was below that of genius of the living emperor
when it came to worship.83 Wardel convincingly suggests that
Varro’s distinction was a minority position in the light of common
79 Winter, B.W ‘Sharing Divine Titles,’ pp 2-3, Wardle, D, ‘Deus or Divus:
The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified Emperors and a
Philosopher’s Contribution,’ in Philosophy and Power in the Graeco Roman
World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, edd Clark, G and Rajak, T,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2002, pp 181-191, esp p 187
80 Wardle, D, ‘Deus or Divus,’ p 182
82 Gradel, I, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, p 265
83 Gradel, I, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, pp 275-276
usage from his time,84 and points out that the qualification of divus
was unnecessary for gods whose status was well known.85
Fundamental to the theological understanding of the divinity of the

emperor is that they were men, who rose up to grasp divinity. This
was Tacitus’ implicit criticism of Tiberius’ failure to hope for divinity.
Competing Claims
In 20 BC, Herod the Great erected a statue of Augustus modelled on
the Olympian statue of Zeus in Caesarea. Mark’s gospel records
Caesarea as the location of Peter’s declaration that it is Jesus, not
Caesar, who is the Christ and Son of the Living God (Mark 8:27-
30).86 Living under these parallel claims of divinity was the day-to-
day reality of the first Christians.
Shared Titles – Jesus as the Lord of a competing

kingdom
A cursory glance at the titles of the Roman Emperors recorded in
the primary sources reveals significant parallels between both Jesus’
description of himself, and the New Testament’s testimony.
Spicq (1994), in an analysis of the League of Asia’s proclamation of

Augustus noted just how similar the Imperial claims were to those of
the early church.
“A saviour who realised ancestral hopes; who has a unique

importance for humanity; who is so great that he will be never
surpassed; whose birth marks the beginning of a new era: so many
descriptions that one might think were created by Christian piety,
but which nevertheless are found in a pagan inscription from not
long before the birth of Jesus.”87

85 eg Romulus, or Hercules, Wardle, D, ‘Deus or Divus,’ p 191
86 Brent, p 72
It was not simply the shared titles of Jesus and the emperor that had
the potential to cause trouble, but the manner in which those titles
were used, the shared terminology, that presented a predicament
for the first Christians.
Shared terminology
The New Testament documents were redolent with Imperial
terminology for their first readers. The writers penned their texts
against a backdrop of Judaism and Roman rule.88 This context leads
us to the conclusion that this shared terminology was deliberate,
inevitable, and unavoidable.89
Oakes (2005) supplies a helpful rubric for analysing authorial

intention in the case of shared terminology from independent
sources. While acknowledging that the outcome of overlapping
language may have created conflict with Rome, he points out that
the language of lordship employed by New Testament authors was
also the language of the Septuagint Jew. Oakes contends that
parallels arising from a common model do not a priori supply
grounds for understanding the relationship between Christianity and
Rome.90 To read any terms commonly employed by the empire as
an implicit challenge of its authority is an illegitimate totality
87 C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Peabody:
Hendrickson), 1994, pp 353-54,
88 Wright, N.T, Paul: Fresh Perspectives, p 59
89 Deliberate because the writers were heralding the arrival of a new and
competing claim to Lordship, inevitable because of the common Greek
parlance of the writers of the gospels and imperial proclamations, and
unavoidable because to aptly frame Jesus’ claims to divine kingship the
writers had to employ both the terminology of royalty, and this language,
whether purposefully or otherwise.
90 Oakes, P, Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1
Thessalonians and Philippians, JSNT 273 (2005) 301-322, p 303, 309,
Oakes suggests that any challenge to the perceived structure of social
order would be interpreted as a challenge to Rome, but argues that
because Roman ideology both provided, and adopted common
terminology about authority, any first century writer discussing the notion
of power or authority must borrow Roman language and concepts. Not all
uses of “Roman” terminology are implicit challenges to Roman rule, some
are the inevitable by-product of this reality. Rome used all the good
language.
transfer. Sandmel’s (1962) warning against parallelomania stands,91
and is rightly invoked by Burk’s (2008) criticism of some proponents
of the “Fresh Perspective on Paul,”92 and indeed against some who
take parallels past the nth degree.93
Oakes supplies four interpretative options for assessing parallel

terminology:
1. The parallel is a coincidence based on use of the same prior

model;
2. Christians are borrowing some aspect of Roman discourse or
practice (without intentionally creating conflict);
3. Christian discourse uses Roman language to react against
trouble caused by Rome;
4. Christians write in Roman terms to directly oppose Rome.94
Given Rome’s intolerance of opposition within the empire – it is

likely that use in any of these four categories could be misconstrued
against the first Christians.
Deissmann (1927) suggests the heralds of Christianity “endeavour

to reserve for Christ the words already in use for worship in that
world, words that had just been transferred to the new deified
emperors.” He acknowledges the operation of categories one and
two – but suggests that these “chance coincidences might later
awaken a powerful sense of contrast.”95
91 Sandmel, S, ‘Parallelomania,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 81 (1962),

pp 1-13.
92 Burk, D, ‘Is Paul’s Gospel Counter-Imperial? Evaluating the prospects of
the “Fresh Perspective” for evangelical theology,’ Journal of the
Evangelical Theology Society, 51/2, June, 2008, pp 309-337
93 Carotta, F, Jesus was Caesar: The Julian Origin of Christianity,
(Soesterberg: Aspekt) 2005
Thessalonians and Philippians, p 307
95 Deissmann, A, Light from the Ancient Near East Or The New Testament
Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco Roman World
Modern scholarship, reading Christianity against a Roman backdrop,
has identified hidden, but direct, opposition to Rome throughout the
New Testament.
Shared Terminology – A Case Study: ευαγγελιον

Wright (2000) repackages the proclamation of the ευαγγελιον as the
proclamation of the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ – consistent with
Roman use of the term ευαγγελιον.96 Stanton (2004) suggests use of
the term in the Septuagint is minimal, and thus that it is likely that
this comparison was deliberate.97 Understood in this light the gospel
message relativises the claims of any other lord, and in the socio-
political context this could only mean Caesar,98 and changes the
perception of the role of the evangelist. The writers of the New
Testament are, in this framework, proclaiming the king of an
alternative kingdom,99 a much more provocative message than the
forgiveness of sins through God’s grace.100
This mission of proclamation could only lead to a clash with the

Roman Empire – predicated as it was, in the Greek east (and later
throughout the empire) on proclaiming the divinity of the
emperor.101
(1927), trans Strachan, L.R.M, (Whitefish: Kessinger), 2003 pp 342-343
96 Wright, N.T, ‘Gospel and Empire,’ Paul: Fresh Perspectives, (London:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge) 2005, p 65, Wright, N.T, Paul’s
Gospel and Caesar’s Empire, Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium,
Interpretation – Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, edited by Horsley,
R.A, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press), 2000, pp 164-167
97 Stanton, G, Jesus and Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 2004, p 13
Thessalonians and Philippians, p 306
99 Wright, N.T, ‘Paul and Caesar,’ Paul and Politics, p 165
100 Though even the forgiveness of sins had parallels in the Roman
Empire, Julius Caesar’s signature “clementia” could understood in a similar
light – undeserved mercy shown after victory.
101 Imperial Cultic practices spread from the Roman East (Greece), where
rulers were traditionally understood as divine within their lifetimes to the
Roman west. At first emperors like Augustus discouraged citizens from the
west from engaging in imperial cultic activities – preferring to direct them
to traditional worship of Roma. As the imperial cult developed in
Winter (2010) suggests that comparisons between the God who
became man and earthly rulers who became gods were
inevitable.102 The conflicting claims of Caesar were everywhere in
first century life – literally from the pillar to post.103
Competing Claims – Kingdom of God v kingdom of gods

When Paul arrived in Athens proclaiming his ευαγγελιον of Jesus
Christ, the locals said “he appears to be a herald of foreign
divinities.”104 A charge fitting with Wright’s repackaging of the
gospel mission. But is this true of every testimony to the Lordship of
Jesus in the New Testament, namely the gospels, the epistles and
the apocalypse?
The cult was most certainly operating in each of the cities

addressed by the epistles,105 and a body of scholarship exists to
importance practices of providing divine titles and recognition to emperors
spread throughout the empire. See Novak, R.M, Christianity and the
International), p 267
102 Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles while Declining New Temples,’
Sharing the Throne of God: Imperial Cultic Activities and Early Christian
Responses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), forthcoming, p 10
103 At the very least from inscriptions on temple pillars to milestones by
the side of the road, where ILS 100, a milestone from Arles in 3 BC reads
“father of the fatherland, the emperor Caesar, son of the deified Pontius
Maximus,” Winter, B.W, Sharing the Throne of God, p 4
104 Winter, B.W, ‘Identifying the Offering, the Cup, and the Table of the
‘Demons’ in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21,’ Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years
Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians, International Scholarly
Conference Proceedings, (Corinth, 23-25 September 2007), p 815 makes
the point that “divinities” here was actually δαιμονιων, a point we will get
to below.
105 Harland, P.A, ‘Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and
Associations at Ephesus (first to third centuries C.E.),’ Studies in Religion /
Sciences religieuses, 25 (1996), pp 319-34, Maier, H.O, ‘A Sly Civility:
Colossians and Empire,’ JSNT, 213 (2005) pp 323-349, Oakes, P, Re-
mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and
Philippians,’ pp 307-308, Harrison, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at
Thessoloniki,’ JSNT 25 1, 2002, pp 71-96 – Harrison relies on numismatic
evidence and inscriptions to establish a flourishing cult in the city of
Thessolonica, Spawforth, A.J.S, ‘The Achaean Federal Cult Part I:Pseudo-
Julian, Letters 1981,’ Tyndale Bulletin 46.1 (1995), pp 151-168, Winter,
B.W, ‘The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II.’ Tyndale Bulletin, 46 no 1 My
1995, pp 169-178, Winter, B.W, ‘The Imperial Cult and Early Christians in
suggest that such a claim is born out with regards to the gospels,
and the letters to Rome,106 Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus,107 Philippi,108
Colossae,109 and Thessalonica,110 and John’s apocalypse.111 A full
study of this scholarship is beyond the ambit (and word limit)112 of
this essay. We will, however, consider three case studies – the
gospels, the letter to the Galatians, and 1 Corinthians.
Competing Claims – A Gospel Case Study

The language used to describe Jesus in the gospels is identical to
that found in epigraphic descriptions of the Roman Emperors.
Nowhere is this clearer than in John’s gospel. Jesus was with God,
and was God, he became flesh (the manifest God) and entered the
Roman Galatia (Acts XIII 13-50 and Galatians VI 11-18),’ in Actes du ler
Congres International sur Antioche de Pisidie, eds., T. Drew-Bear, M.
Tashalan and C. M. Thomas: Iniversite Lumiere - Lyon 2 and Diffusion de
Boccard, 2002, 67-75, Hardin, J.K, Galatians and the Imperial Cult,
(Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008
106 Wright, N.T, ‘Paul and Caesar: a new reading of Romans,’ A Royal
Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically, ed. C.
Bartholemew, (Carlisle: Paternoster), 2002, pp 173–193, Harrison, J.R, The
Augustan Age of Grace, ‘The Augustan Age of Grace,’ Tyndale Bulletin,
50.1, 1999, pp 79-91, Charlesworth, M.P , ‘Some Observations on Ruler-
Cult Especially in Rome,’ Harvard Theological Review, 28 no 1,1935, p 5-
44
107 Strelan, R, Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, (Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter), 1996, p 110, contra Horsley, ‘Paul’s Counter-Imperial Gospel:
Introduction,’ p 142, and Elliott N, ‘The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross,
Paul and Empire, pp 178-181 who deny Pauline authorship of Ephesians
and thus minimise his focus on “powers” in Eph 6:12.
Thessalonians and Philippians, JSNT 273 (2005) 301-322
109 Maier, pp 326-344 suggests several passages in Colossians are
directly related to the imperial cult and concludes that the letter disavows
the empire even as it mimics it.
110 Harrison, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessoloniki,’ JSNT 25 1,
2002, pp 71-96, Donfried, K.P, ‘The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1
Thessalonians,’ Paul and Empire, ed Horsley, R.A, pp 221-223, Oakes, P,
‘Re-mapping the Universe’
111 Friesen, ‘Satan 's Throne, Imperial Cults and Revelation,’ Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 27.3 (2005), Barr, D.L, ‘John’s Ironic
Empire,’ Interpretation vol 63 no 1, Jan 2009, pp 20-30, Van Kooten, G.H,
‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The 'pro-
Neronian9 Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of
Nero in Rome,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007), pp
205-248
112 Though an extended edition is available upon request…
world that was his. These competing claims run through all four
gospels.
Brent (1999) argues that Luke-Acts frames Christianity as the

fulfilment of Judaism in a direct parallel to the Augustan fulfilment of
Roman religious belief.113 He sees Luke’s linking of the chronology of
Jesus’ ministry with Roman chronology, and the recording of
interactions with key Roman characters, as part of this deliberate
parallel between the two kings,114 suggesting Luke’s focus on
salvation as the role of the king is another direct contrast with
Roman theology. He identifies parallels between the Augustan
decree from 9 BC, and Zechariah’s song (Luke 1:78-79).115
Luke contrasts the Roman notion of the emperors as sons of gods

with the direct claim that Jesus is an actual son of god (Luke 1:35).
Matthew records Jesus’ claim that all authority on earth is his (Matt
28:18), Luke records Jesus’ words against the so called benefactors
– the kings of the Gentiles (Luke 22:25), conferring a God given
kingdom on his disciples (Luke 22:29). These statements of
authority – similar to Paul’s description of Jesus’ current rule (Phil
2:9-11) deliberately contrasted Rome’s imperial claims.116 Rowe
(2005) suggests that Luke’s priority is to clarify the appropriate
relationship between Christians and the empire, focusing on his use
of the word κυριος for both Jesus and Caesar. Concluding that
Luke’s view of a Christian response is that they may refer to the
κύριος καΤσαρ as κύριος, as indeed Luke himself does (Acts 25.26),
but Jesus κύριος is the κύριος παντων (Acts 10.36).117 Brent
116 Oakes, P, ‘Re-mapping the Universe,’ p 309
117 Rowe, C.K, ‘Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A way through the
conundrum,’ JSNT 213 (2005), pp 279-300, Rowe spends the first half of
his article wandering the Roman forest of Luke-Acts blindly ignoring the
Imperial trees, before suddenly opening his eyes, even his abstract is
confused: “This article points out the serious difficulties inherent in trying
to relate Luke-Acts to the imperial cult. Having acknowledged such
suggests Luke-Acts is predicated on providing Christians with
reasons not to participate in the cult.118
John paints the Roman Empire in a negative light, establishing

grounds for criticism of the emperor on the basis that Rome was
culpable for the death of Jesus. In John the Jewish agitators persuade
Pilate that Jesus stands in opposition to Caesar, and thus is worthy
of death (John 19:12). The Jews claim to “have no king but Caesar”
(John 19:15). Koester (1990) points out the contrast John creates
between the Jews and the Samaritans’ reception of Jesus, where
they proclaim him the “saviour of the world” – a phrase steeped in
Imperial significance (John 4:42).119
Mark focuses on Jesus’ claims to lordship, which culminate with his

account of Jesus trial, and the Roman Centurion’s testimony that
Jesus is the Son of God. Kim (1998) argues that the anarthrous use
of the υιος θεου in Mark’s account (Mark 15:39) is a purposeful
parallel with the ruler cult’s use of “son of god” to establish imperial
authority.120 Winn (2008) dates Mark at around 70AD, and reads his
account against a Sitz im Leben of intertwined Jewish messianism
and imperial cultish ideas.121 Assuming an earlier (pre-Nero)
difficulties, the attempt is made nonetheless to relate concretely Luke-

Acts to the cult on the basis of the significance of Acts 10.36 for Luke-Acts
as a whole and its potential impact upon auditors in the ancient
Mediterranean world.”
118 Brent, pp 127-128: “Luke-Acts offers a positive reason for non-
participation, namely that the purpose of the Imperial Cult, namely the
pax deorum and the sacramental means for the continuance of the
saeculum aureum is far better achieved through the ειρηνη of Bethlehem
and the Triumphal Entry and νικη and σωτερια that follow the birth of the
Child from the Virgin, and his death and resurrection”
119 Koester, C.R, ‘The Savior of the World (John 4:42),’ Journal of Biblical
Literature, 109/4, 1990, 665-680, p 678
120 Kim, T.H, ‘The Anarthrous υιος θεου in Mark 15,39 and the Roman
Imperial Cult,’ Biblica 79, 1998, pp 221-241
121 Winn, A, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An early Christian response to
Roman Imperial Propaganda, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008, pp 172-175,
Winn cites heightened Roman sensitivity to Jewish messianic ideas (in the
wake of failed messianic revolts) and Vespian’s claims to be the fulfilment
of messianic prophecy as factors contributing to this setting.
composition for Mark’s gospel does not necessarily negate Winn’s
observations regarding its political setting.122
It is clear, from this small sample of apparently deliberate contrasts,

that the heralds of the new empire saw the kingdom of God
occupying the same space as the kingdom of Rome, or at the very
least in the same space as the cultic aspect of the emperor of that
kingdom.
Competing Claims – A Galatian Case Study

The question of references to the Imperial Cult in Galatians is a
Jewish question. Winter’s (2002) thesis on the motives behind Jewish
agitation in Galatia (Galatians 6:12) is that Jewish Christians were
encouraging gentile converts to use Jewish camouflage to avoid
participating in imperial cult, or persecution for failing to
participate.123 Jews in the Roman Empire are understood to have
been exempt from cultic practices, free instead to practice their own
religion.124 This freedom varied from emperor to emperor, and
region to region. There was no written charter providing such
freedom.125
122 The persecution Christians faced under Nero would likely produce the
same Judeo-Christian sentiment regarding Roman rule, and failed
messiahs were common in the first century AD.
123 Winter, B.W, ‘The Imperial Cult and Early Christians in Roman Galatia
(Acts XIII 13-50 and Galatians VI 11-18),’ in Actes du ler Congres
International sur Antioche de Pisidie, eds., T. Drew-Bear, M. Tashalan and
C. M. Thomas: Iniversite Lumiere - Lyon 2 and Diffusion de Boccard, 2002,
67-75, This thesis finds some support from Stanton, G, Jesus and Gospel,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2004, pp 43-46, and Hardin, J.K,
‘Avoiding Persecution and the Imperial Cult,’ Galatians and the Imperial
Cult, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008, pp 85-115
124 Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, Papyrus found at Philadelphia
in the Fayum, Egypt, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and
trans. Shrek, R.K, pp 83-86 – “Therefore, even now I earnestly ask of you
that the Alexandrians conduct themselves more gently and kindly toward
the Jews who have lived in the same city for a long time, and that they do
not inflict indignities upon any of their customs in the worship of their god,
but that they allow them to keep their own practices just as in the time of
the god Augustus, which practices I too have confirmed after hearing both
sides”
125 Rajak, T, ‘Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?’, The Journal of
Roman Studies, Vol 74 (1984) pp 107-123, Pucci Ben Zeev, M, ‘Jewish
Josephus and Philo record that the Jews abrogated their cultic
responsibilities by offering sacrifices for the emperor,126 Herod, not
content with this arrangement, built three temples dedicated to the
emperor and Rome, McLaren (2005) suggests honouring the cult
was a major priority in Judea.127 This did not prevent the use of the
cult as a weapon in Jewish-Roman relations.128
Winter (2001) argues that Gallio’s decision (Acts 18:12-17) initially
served to protect Christians from participating in the Imperial Cult
under the mos maiorum, and Gentile converts to Judaism were
recognised as Jewish by imperial law.129
Hardin (2008) in his extensive treatment of the situation follows

Winter, adding a minor addendum to reflect his findings that the
Jews actually participated almost fully in the practices of the
Imperial Cult. He suggests Christians were in no man’s land –
neither Jew, nor gentile, and that the agitators, Jewish converts,
Rights in the Roman World – The Greek and Roman Documents quoted by
Josephus Flavius’, 1998, Mohr Siebek, pg 412, Rutgers, L.V, ‘Roman Policy
Towards Jews’, Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome edited by
Donfried, K.P and Richardson, P, pp 93-116, one only needs to consider
Caligula’s aborted attempt to hijack the temple, and its destruction under
Nero to accept this point.
126 McLaren, J.S, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ Journal for the Study of the
New Testament, 27.3 (2005), pp 257-278, p 271
127 McLaren, J.S, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ p 259, these temples were
constructed at Caesarea Maritima, Sebaste, and Banias
128 McLaren, J.S, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ p 262, Imperial cultic
requirements were a flashpoint. The Greek citizens of Alexandria triggered
the incident leading to Claudius’ missive by erecting statues of the
emperor in the synagogue. If the Jews removed the statues this may be
seen as imperial impropriety, Josephus’ account of the incident suggests
the Greek citizens used the cult as a weapon, Pilate also caused some
consternation in Judea by introducing inscribed shields to Jerusalem, see
Fuks, G, ‘Again on the episode of the gilded Roman shields at Jerusalem,’
Harvard Theological Review, 75 no 4, 1982, pp 503-507
129 Winter, B.W, After Paul Left Corinth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans),
2001, pp 278-280, Winter, B.W, ‘Gallio’s Ruling on the Legal Status of
Early Christianity (Acts 18:14-15),’ Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999) 213-
224.
wanted the church to pick a side.130 He concludes his monograph by
suggesting that the imperial cult forms an important backdrop for
the study of Galatians, and the New Testament as a whole.131
Competing Claims - In Corinthians (1 & 2)

The Imperial Cult was part of the fabric of Corinth from its inception
as a Roman colony.132 Oakes interprets 1 Corinthians 8-10 as Paul
providing concessions for the Corinthians to take part in the Imperial
Cult,133 Winter (2007) offers a better reading of these chapters,
arguing that Paul wanted his readers to have no part of the
emperor’s cup and table (1 Corinthians 10:20-21).134 They were not
to drink from the cup of the δαιμονια, the emperor’s genius,135
Tertullian’s Apology demonstrates that this was how the earliest
readers understood Paul’s instructions.136
Legal exemption from the cult did not matter, because Christians
were choosing to exercise their rights to partake in cultic activities.
130 Hardin, J.K, ‘Avoiding Persecution and the Imperial Cult,’ Galatians
and the Imperial Cult, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008, pp 85-115
131 Hardin, J.K, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, p 155
132 Winter, B.W, The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II, p 170
133 Oakes, P, p 309, on the basis of knowledge that the gods are
false.
134 Winter, B.W, ‘Identifying the Offering, the Cup, and the Table of
the ‘Demons’ in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21,’ Saint Paul and Corinth:
1950 Years Since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians,
International Scholarly Conference Proceedings, (Corinth, 23-25
September 2007), pp 815-836
135 Winter, B.W, ‘Identifying the Offering, the Cup and the Table of
the ‘Demons,’ p 836, drinking libations to the emperor’s genius
started in the time of Augustus, here Winter argues that it became
part of the veneration of living emperors under Claudius and Nero.
136 Tertullian, Apology, 32.3, in Novak, p 270, “
“We make our oaths too, not by the “genius of the Caesar” but by
his health, which is more august than any genius. Do you not know
that genius is a name for demon, or in the diminutive daemonium?
We respect the judgment of God in the Emperors, who has set them
over that nations. We know that to be in them which God wished to
be there, and so we wish that safe, which God wished; and we count
that a great oath. But demons, or geniuses, we are accustomed to
exorcise in order to drive them out of men – not to swear by them
and so give them the honour of divinity.”
Caught Between Two worlds - In Ephesians
The Imperial Cult was already established in Ephesus at the time of
Paul’s visit (Acts 19).137 Harland (1996) makes the case for a
significant adherence to the cult operating in the city.138
Modern scholarship’s fascination with denying Pauline authorship of

Ephesians, and reducing the spiritual significance of the imperial
cult in the lives of Roman citizens,139 has diminished the focus on
Paul’s condemnation of powers. Horsley suggests deutero-Paul pulls
his punches by spiritualising imperial powers,140 Elliot (1997), in
distinguishing Paul’s approach from the so called pseudo-Paul of
Ephesians, suggests that Paul only ever deals with the powers in the
earthly plane.141
Strelan (1996) suggests the language of powers (Ephesians 6:12)

can be read in line with a struggle against the Roman system,142
which is essentially a struggle against the imperial cult.
Caught Between Two worlds - In Colossae

The city of Colossae was situated 100km away from the Sebasteion
of Aphrodisias, which was completed at around the same time as
the epistle.143
137 Brent, pp 120-121

138 Harland, P.A, ‘Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults
and Associations at Ephesus (first to third centuries C.E.),’ Studies in
Religion / Sciences religieuses, 25 (1996), pp 319-34.
139 Horsley, R.A, ‘Paul’s Counter-Imperial Gospel: Introduction,’
Paul and Empire, pp 142-144
140 Horsley, ‘Paul’s Counter-Imperial Gospel: Introduction,’ p 142
141 Elliott, N, ‘The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross, Paul and
Empire, pp 178-181
142 Strelan, R, Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, (Berlin:
Walter De Gruyter), 1996, p 110
143 Maier, H.O, ‘A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire,’ JSNT, 213
(2005) 323-349 p 336, a monument to the divinity of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty featuring statues of the imperial family alongside
the gods of Olympia.
Paul’s proclamation of ευαγγελιον for the whole world (Colossians
1:6, 23), and the language of Roman Triumph (Colossians 2:15)
have been interpreted as the clearest links with imperial theology.
Maier (2005) identifies the language of the “kingdom of God’s
beloved son,” (Colossians 1:13), universal reconciliation, beyond the
boundaries of Rome’s empire (Colossians 3:1) and God’s making
peace with enemies (Colossians 1:20-23), the renewal brought
about by Christ’s enthronement, and resulting peace of Christ
(Colossians 3:1, 10, 15) as “playing in the contact zone of imperial
politics,”144 and capturing the zeitgeist of Roman utopian ideas.145
Maier speculates that the language of peace in Colossians is a
reference to the Roman Pax, and associated imperial honorific.146
Colossians 1:15-21 presents the narrative of Jesus life in divine

terms – he unlike Caesar, was a God who became man, and who has
a natural claim on the world. Maier suggests the language of this
passage resonates with the language of imperial rule, so that first
readers could not fail to make a comparison.147 By identifying his
crucifixion at the hands of Rome as his triumph (Colossians 2:15),
Paul draws an ironic parallel with the triumphs of Roman rulers, a
parallel Maier suggests continues in the “putting off the old nature”
and “putting on the new” (Colossians 3:8-15). Roman triumph rituals
required the symbolic changing of clothes to celebrate victorious
rule.148
Maier concludes that Colossians deliberately echoes imperial ideas,

without replicating them, and that the “cross disavows the empire
even as it mimics it.”149
144 Maier, p 326-328
145 Maier, p 340
146 Maier, p 333
147 Maier, p 339
148 Maier, p 344, Maier also suggests the aorist middle
απεκδυσαμενος (2.15) refers to “Christ's death as a disrobing in
preparation for the victory parade to follow”
149 Maier, p 349
Caught Between Two worlds - In Philippi
The charges brought against Paul and Silas in Philippi (Acts 16:20-
21) are that they are “promoting customs that are unlawful for
Romans to practice.” Philippi was home to a large imperial
temple.150 The city was particularly strongly committed to the
imperial ideology, and Oakes argues that the Philippians were
experiencing suffering because they rejected cultic practice, and
other Roman social norms.151 He distinguishes imperial ideology
from commitment to the ruler cult, suggesting, based on a paucity
of ruler cult inscriptions compared to other cults, that avoiding the
ruler cult would have been relatively easy.152
Paul argues Christian ideology is shaped by citizenship of a new

empire (Philippians 3.20), that determines their conduct, under a
new imperial power who will save them.153 This language draws a
clear distinction between Jesus and Caesar.154 Paul deliberately
places Jesus’ authority above that of the emperor (Philippians 2:9-
11) to encourage the Philippians to maintain their distinctives and to
avoid falling back into Roman culture, including the ruler cult.155
Caught Between Two worlds - In Thessalonica

Harrison (2002) suggests Thessalonica was enraptured with the
'imperial gospel', whose 'eschatology' proclaimed that Augustus had
arrived as the ultimate Saviour, and that Paul writes to radically
150 Oakes, P, pp 307-308

151 Oakes, P, pp 304-305, 310
152 Oakes, P, pp 313-314
153 Oakes, P, p 319
154 Oakes, P, p 320
155 Oakes, P, pp 304-305
subvert this idea.156 He suggests use of κυριο without deference to
Rome was inconceivable.157
Numismatic and epigraphic evidence support the notion of a

flourishing imperial cult in the city.158 Its citizens are zealous for the
emperor. The accusation brought against Jason and his fellow
Christians in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-7) is that they preach a
different emperor. Judge (1971) suggests this charge arises from an
oath of fealty the Thessalonians swore to the emperor as part of
their cultic practices.159 Donfried (1997) suggests Christians in
Thessalonica had been martyred at the time of Paul’s epistle, for
breaking this oath.160
156 Oakes, P, p 306, Harrison, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at

Thessoloniki,’ JSNT 25 1, 2002, pp 71-96, Harrison suggests 1 Thess
4:13-5:11 is a deliberate and provocative reimagining of Augustan
eschatology, post death Augustus is believed to rule the world from
heaven via his star sign, maintaining the political status quo. Paul’s
contrast of a king who will return from death is couched in imperial
terminology and could not fail to be understood that way.
157 Harrison, J.R, p 78
158 Harrison, J.R, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessoloniki,’ p
81, “The obverse of a series of Thessalonian coins show the laureate
head of Caesar and carry the legend ΘΕΟΣ. The reverse displays the
bare head of Octavian either with the legend ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΩΝ or
ΘΕ|ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ”
159 Judge, E.A, ‘The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,’ The First
Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament
Essays, ed. Harrison, J.R, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), pp 456-462, orig
1971, the oath (CIL II172) the people of Antium swore to Caligula
thirteen years before Thessalonians was written reads: “On my
conscience, I shall be an enemy of those persons whom I know to be
enemies of Gaius Caesar Germanicus, and if anyone imperils or
shall imperil him or his safety by arms or by civil war I shall not
cease to hunt him down by land and by sea, until he pays the
penalty to Caesar in full I shall not hold myself or my children
dearer than his safety and I shall consider as my enemies those
persons who are hostile to him If consciously I swear falsely or am
proved false may Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the deified Augustus
and all the other immortal gods punish me and my children with
loss of country, safety, and all my fortune.
160 Donfried, K.P, ‘The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1
Thessalonians,’ Paul and Empire, ed Horsley, R.A, pp 221-223
Paul believes the Thessalonians to have given up on idol worship (1
Thess 1:9), which arguably included the deified Caesars.161 Donfried
suggests the calling of the Christians into God’s own kingdom (1
Thess. 2:12), and παρουσία, απάντηση (1 Thess. 4.15-17) has
imperial undertones,162 Harrison agrees, drawing on the use of the
Latin equivalent of παρουσια on imperial coinage to support this
view,163 Oakes suggests the use of παρουσια, in this case, has no
imperial significance, 164 but agrees with both that the use of the
shorthand form of an imperial slogan (1 Thess. 5.3), was deliberate.
165
Caught Between Two worlds - In Rome

Harrison (1999) identifies a deliberate undercurrent of comparison
to Roman beneficence in Paul’s description of grace in Romans 5-
8.166 Wright (2002) suggests the language of the imperial cult, and
use of divine titles, plays a pivotal role in the epistle from Paul’s
opening salvo (Romans 1:1-17) to his parting words.167
Caught Between Two Worlds – In Revelation

Revelation, John’s apocalyptic vision, has traditionally been
understood as an explicit rebuke of Roman imperial theology.
Scholars pushing for a late first century dating of the book refuse to
read it as such, Friesen (2005) suggests John’s letters to the
161 Oakes, P, p 309

162 Donfried, K.P, ‘The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1
Thessalonians,’ Paul and Empire, pp 215-216
163 Harrison, J.R, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessoloniki,’
JSNT 25 1, 2002, pp 71-96, p 81, 83
164 Oakes, P, p 315, though it was common terminology that
described an arriving political leader
165 Oakes, P, p 318, Harrison, p 86-87
166 Harrison, J.R, The Augustan Age of Grace, ‘The Augustan Age of
Grace,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 50.1, 1999, pp 79-91, at pp 90-91, “The
language of abundance (περισσεύειν) and excess (ύπερβάλλειν,
υπερβολή) that regularly accompanies Paul's language of grace is
also found on the Augustan inscriptions of the first century”
167 Wright, N.T, ‘Paul and Caesar: a new reading of Romans,’ A
Royal Priesthood: The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically, ed. C.
Bartholemew, (Carlisle: Paternoster), 2002, pp 173–193
churches (Revelation 2-3) contain no references to Imperial Cults,168
and that he only makes use of the cult as a rhetorical device for a
broader purpose of fostering agreement between disparate
communities in the later chapters (Revelation 13-19).169 He does,
begrudgingly, admit that John’s purposes are to foster an orientation
of resistance to Roman imperialism.170 Barr (2009) reads John’s
vision not against a backdrop of persecution from Rome, but rather
a backdrop of participation in cultic practice.171
Van Kooten (2007) argues convincingly for a much earlier

composition of Revelation, which brings the imperial cult back to
front and centre for interpretations of Revelation.172
Caught between two worlds – the life of the

first Christians
Recognition that for the first century reader being caught between
two worlds was not a metaphysical conception but their day-to-day
social, political and religious reality is an emerging trend in Biblical
scholarship.173 It was not on the periphery, or a fiction created by a
Christian apocalyptic propaganda machine.174
168 Friesen, ‘Satan 's Throne, Imperial Cults and Revelation,’
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.3 (2005), p 366
169 Friesen, ‘Satan 's Throne, Imperial Cults and Revelation,’ p 367
170 Friesen, ‘Satan 's Throne, Imperial Cults and Revelation,’ p 373
171 Barr, D.L, ‘John’s Ironic Empire,’ Interpretation vol 63 no 1, Jan
2009, pp 20-30
172 Van Kooten, G.H, ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the
Revelation of John: The 'pro-Neronian9 Emperors Otho and Vitellius,
and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome,’ Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 30.2 (2007), pp 205-248
173 Winter, B.W, ‘The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II,’ Tyndale Bulletin,
46 no 1 My 1995, pp 169-178, p 170, “Contrary to the popular perception
of New Testament scholars, emperor worship was subsequently neither
rejected by Tiberius, nor did it lie dormant until the reign of Domitian,
except for spasmodic periods in the reigns of Caligula and Nero.”
174 This argument persists, for example in Harland, P.A, ‘Honouring The
Emperor Or Assailing The Beast: Participation In Civic Life Among
Associations (Jewish, Christian And Other) In Asia Minor And The
Converting to Christianity presented problems for anyone living in
the Roman Empire. Christian ideas inherently challenged the
imperial cult, and thus the Roman ideology.175 Correspondence
between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan indicates that worshiping the
emperor eventually became a litmus test for apostasy, but the
competing claims of Christ and Caesar were a catalyst for trouble
Rome and the first Christians.176
Participating in the imperial cult was always anathema for

Christians,177 the Christian empire’s eschatology and Christology are
in conflict with Roman ideology.178They were two incongruous
systems employing shared terminology.179 Christianity may have
employed similar titles to the empire, but they did this with the
intention of expanding imperial ideas to capture the superior
majesty of Christ.180Comparisons were inevitable. The propaganda
of imperial rule carried the terminology of Christian gospel
proclamation.
The colourful trappings of the imperial cult were a snare for the first
Christians, and its place in civic life made life as citizens difficult for
Apocalypse Of John,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no 77,
2000, p 99-121, at pp 103-104, “The traditional view of the Apocalypse is
that the author's references to martyrdoms in the futuristic visions are in
fact references to the actual, current situation faced by most Christians
involving a substantial and official persecution under Domitian, who
forced inhabitants to worship him as 'lord and god'…Many scholars now
convincingly argue that persecution of Christians in the first two centuries
in Asia Minor is better characterized as local and sporadic, relating to
social harassment and verbal abuse by some inhabitants that could
occasionally lead to physical abuse or martyrdom.” An early (pre Nero)
dating of Revelation solves the conundrum posited by Harland et al who
minimise the impact of imperial persecution.
176 Oster, R, ‘Christianity/Emperor Veneration in Ephesus,’ Restoration
Quarterly, 25 no 3 1982, p 143-149
179 Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles,’ p 10
180 Maier, H.O, ‘A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire’, JSNT 213 (2005)
323-349, p 325, note 5
conscientious objectors. Tertullian’s Apology demonstrates that this
refusal to worship the men who became gods, in the place of the
God who became man, was a problem for the first Christians:
“You do not worship the gods,' you say to us, 'and you do not offer
sacrifices for the emperors.' It follows that we do not sacrifice for
others, for the same reason that we do not sacrifice for ourselves—
in a word, from our not worshipping the gods. Consequently we are
judicially charged with sacrilege and disloyalty. This is the chief
point in the case, or rather it is the whole case…We cease to
worship your gods from that moment when we recognize that they
do not exist.”
Bibliography
Barr, D.L, ‘John’s Ironic Empire,’ Interpretation, vol 63 no 1, Jan 2009, pp 20-
30
Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ The Imperial Cult and the
Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in
Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian, (Leiden:Brill),
1999
Burk, D, ‘Is Paul’s Gospel Counter-Imperial? Evaluating the prospects of the
“Fresh Perspective” for evangelical theology,’ Journal of the Evangelical
Theology Society, 51/2, June, 2008, pp 309-337
C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Peabody:
Hendrickson), 1994
Carotta, F, Jesus was Caesar: The Julian Origin of Christianity, (Soesterberg:
Aspekt) 2005
Charlesworth, M.P , ‘Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome,’
Clark, M.E, ‘Spes in the Early Imperial Cult: “The Hope of Augustus”,’ Numen
Vol XXX, Fasc 1, 1983, pp 80-105
Deissmann, A, Light from the Ancient Near East Or The New Testament
Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco Roman World (1927),
trans Strachan, L.R.M, (Whitefish: Kessinger), 2003
Donfried, K.P, ‘The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians,’
Paul and Empire, ed Horsley, R.A, 1997, pp 221-223
Elliott N, ‘The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross,’ Paul and Empire, ed.
Horsley, R.A, 1997, pp 178-181
Fishwick, D, ‘Genius and Numen,’ Harvard Theological Review, 62 no 3, 1969,
p 356-367
Fishwick, D, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of
the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Vol I, 2nd Edition, (Leiden: Brill)
1993
Friesen, ‘Satan 's Throne, Imperial Cults and Revelation,’ Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 27.3 (2005) pp 351-373.
Fuks, G, ‘Again on the episode of the gilded Roman shields at Jerusalem,’
Gradel, I, ‘Heavenly Honours Decreed by the Senate,’ Emperor Worship and
the Roman Imperial Cult, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2002
Hardin, J.K, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008
Harland, P.A, ‘Honouring The Emperor Or Assailing The Beast: Participation In
Civic Life Among Associations (Jewish, Christian And Other) In Asia Minor And
The Apocalypse Of John,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no 77,
2000, p 99-121,
Harland, P.A, ‘Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and
Associations at Ephesus (first to third centuries C.E.),’ Studies in Religion /
Sciences religieuses, 25 (1996), pp 319-34,
Harrison, J.R, ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessoloniki,’ Journal for the
Study of the New Testament, 25 1, 2002, pp 71-96
Harrison, J.R, ‘The Augustan Age of Grace,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 50.1, 1999, pp
79-91, at pp 85-86
Horsley, R.A, ‘Paul’s Counter-Imperial Gospel: Introduction,’ Paul and Empire,
ed. Horsley, R.A
Inscriptions of the Roman Empire. AD 14-117, edited by B. H. Warmington, B.
H. and S. J. Miller (London: The London Association of Classical Teachers),
1996
Kim, T.H, ‘The Anarthrous υιος θεου in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial
Cult,’ Biblica 79, 1998, pp 221-241
Koester, C.R, ‘The Savior of the World (John 4:42),’ Journal of Biblical
Literature, 109/4, 1990, pp 665-680
Kreitzer, L, ‘Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,’ Biblical Archaeologist. 53
December, 1990, pp 211- 217
Maier, H.O, ‘A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire,’ Journal for the Study of the
New Testament, 213 (2005) pp 323-349,
McLaren, ‘Jews and the Imperial Cult,’ Journal for the Study of the New
Testament, 27.3 (2005), pp 257-278
Mitchell, S, Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 1995
Novak, R.M, Christianity and the Roman Empire – Background Texts
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International), 2001
Oakes, P, Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians
and Philippians, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 273 (2005) 301-
322
Oster, R, ‘Christianity/Emperor Veneration in Ephesus,’ Restoration Quarterly,
25 no 3 1982, p 143-149
Pachis, P, “Manufacturing Religion: The Case of Demetra Karapophoros in
Ephesos” Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 21-25,
2008, from http://post.queensu.ca/~rsa/redescribing/Panayotits.pdf
Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1984
Pucci Ben Zeev, M, Jewish Rights in the Roman World – The Greek and Roman
Documents quoted by Josephus Flavius, 1998, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebek)
Rajak, T, ‘Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?’, The Journal of Roman
Studies, Vol 74 (1984) pp 107-123,
Rowe, C.K, ‘Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult: A way through the conundrum,’
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 213 (2005), pp 279-300,
Rutgers, L.V, ‘Roman Policy Towards Jews’, Judaism and Christianity in First
Century Rome, edited by Donfried, K.P and Richardson, P, pp 93-116
Sandmel, S, ‘Parallelomania,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 81 (1962), pp 1-13.
Spawforth, A.J.S, ‘The Achaean Federal Cult Part I:Pseudo-Julian, Letters
1981,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 46.1 (1995), pp 151-168,
Stanton, G, Jesus and Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2004
Strelan, R, Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, (Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter), 1996
The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Documents of Greece and Rome,
Edited and Translated by Sherk, R.K, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 1988
The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, ed. and trans. Shrek, R.K, pp 102-
103
Turcan, R, The Gods of Ancient Rome, trans, Nevill, A, (New York: Routledge),
2000, orig 1998
Van Kooten, G.H, ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John:
The 'pro-Neronian9 Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and
Colossus of Nero in Rome,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2
(2007), pp 205-248
Wardle, D, ‘Deus or Divus: The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified
Emperors and a Philosopher’s Contribution,’ in Philosophy and Power in the
Graeco Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, edd Clark, G and
Rajak, T, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2002
Winn, A, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An early Christian response to Roman
Imperial Propaganda, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck), 2008
Winter, B.W, ‘Gallio’s Ruling on the Legal Status of Early Christianity (Acts
18:14-15),’ Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999) 213-224.
Winter, B.W, ‘Identifying the Offering, the Cup, and the Table of the ‘Demons’
in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21,’ Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years Since the
Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians, International Scholarly Conference
Proceedings, (Corinth, 23-25 September 2007).
Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles While ‘Declining’ New Temples,’ Sharing
the Throne of God: Imperial Cultic Activities and Early Christian Responses
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), forthcoming
Winter, B.W, ‘The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 46 no 1
1995, pp 169-178
Winter, B.W, ‘The Imperial Cult and Early Christians in Roman Galatia (Acts
XIII 13-50 and Galatians VI 11-18),’ in Actes du ler Congres International sur
Antioche de Pisidie, eds., T. Drew-Bear, M. Tashalan and C. M. Thomas:
Iniversite Lumiere - Lyon 2 and Diffusion de Boccard, 2002, pp 67-75
Winter, B.W, ‘The Imperial Cult,’ The Book of Acts in its First Century Settings:
Vol 2: Graeco Roman Settings, ed Gill, D.W.J and Gempf, C, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans), 1994
Winter, B.W, After Paul Left Corinth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 2001
Winter, B.W, Seek the Welfare of the City. Christians as Benefactors and
Citizens, First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Michigan:
Eerdmans), 1994
Winter, B.W, Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles while Declining New
Temples,’ Sharing the Throne of God: Imperial Cultic Activities and Early
Christian Responses, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), forthcoming
Wright, N.T, ‘Gospel and Empire,’ Paul: Fresh Perspectives, (London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge) 2005
Wright, N.T, ‘Paul and Caesar: a new reading of Romans,’ A Royal Priesthood:
The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically, ed. C. Bartholemew, (Carlisle:
Paternoster), 2002, pp 173–193
Wright, N.T, Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire, Paul and Politics: Ekklesia,
Israel, Imperium, Interpretation – Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, edited
by Horsley, R.A, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press), 2000
Zanker, P, ‘The Power of Images,’ Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in
Roman Imperial Society, ed. Horsley, R.A, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press) 1997

God Man V Man Gods

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

God Man V Man Gods

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Abstract

Inscriptions predating Christianity both describe the Emperor using

A study of Roman history charts the development of the Imperial

We will consider the hypothesis that the gospel writers, especially

We will analyse the significance of language shared by the gospel

Tracing the Development of the Imperial Cult

This theological disparity placed emperors in a difficult position

Augustus synergised the spheres of church and state by taking the

Vergil’s Aeneid describes Augustus as the founder of a golden age,

Augustus also assumed control of Rome’s prophetic schools16 and

A statue of Augustus dressed as Apollo, next door to the newly

A fusing of Roman virtues (peace, fortune, providence, etc) in the

When Augustus took the title of Pontifex Maximus in 13 BC he

Fishwick (1969) discussing the distinction between genius and

21 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ pp 65-66

The imperial cult emerged from its chrysalis in the lifetime of

27 Zanker, P, ‘The Power of Images,’ p 77, Zanker describes an Imperial

Though he accepted one temple in his honour he felt compelled to

Tacitus’ Annals of Rome records him declining honours and wishing

The suspicious reaction to Tiberius’ “persistent contemptuous”

35 Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome 4.37-38, in Novak, R.M, Christianity

His adopted son, Germanicus (father of Caligula), repudiated divinity

Suetonius, in his second century “Life of Caligula” records details of

An inscription from his reign reveals his personal campaign for

39 Kreitzer, L, Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,’ p 215

Caligula famously planned to set up statues to himself on the altar

By the reign of Caligula the ruler cult was an overt method

Nero’s designation of tax-exempt status for the province of Achaia is

An inscription from Boeotia contains Nero’s decree, freeing “noble

Refusing Divine Titles and the importance of the

Refusing cultic offerings was a performance of humility orchestrated

Shrek, R.K, pp 83-86

Glorification of the emperor was a form of political currency, or a

48 Winter, B.W, ‘Sharing Divine Titles While ‘Declining’ New Temples,’

Winter (forthcoming) suggests that even when offers to construct

59 Price, S.R.F, Rituals and Power, p 72

The cult, through civic distributions of food, and entertainment,

69 Brent, A, ‘The Foundations of the Imperial Cult,’ p 17

The Man Gods

Contra Wardle and Winter, Gradel suggests that divus traditionally

Fundamental to the theological understanding of the divinity of the

Shared Titles – Jesus as the Lord of a competing

Spicq (1994), in an analysis of the League of Asia’s proclamation of

“A saviour who realised ancestral hopes; who has a unique

84 Wardle, D, ‘Deus or Divus,’ p 183

Oakes (2005) supplies a helpful rubric for analysing authorial

Oakes supplies four interpretative options for assessing parallel

1. The parallel is a coincidence based on use of the same prior

Given Rome’s intolerance of opposition within the empire – it is

Deissmann (1927) suggests the heralds of Christianity “endeavour

91 Sandmel, S, ‘Parallelomania,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 81 (1962),

Shared Terminology – A Case Study: ευαγγελιον

This mission of proclamation could only lead to a clash with the

Competing Claims – Kingdom of God v kingdom of gods

The cult was most certainly operating in each of the cities

Competing Claims – A Gospel Case Study

Brent (1999) argues that Luke-Acts frames Christianity as the

Luke contrasts the Roman notion of the emperors as sons of gods

John paints the Roman Empire in a negative light, establishing

Mark focuses on Jesus’ claims to lordship, which culminate with his

difficulties, the attempt is made nonetheless to relate concretely Luke-

It is clear, from this small sample of apparently deliberate contrasts,