An Ephesian interlude (2): a reflection for Day 10 of Lent

“Paul entered the synagogue and for three months spoke out boldly and argued persuasively about the kingdom of God. When some stubbornly refused to believe and spoke evil of the Way before the congregation, he left them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.” (Acts 19.8-9)

     The historian of the first century has to deal with a peculiar problem – how did the movement loyal to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel survive the death of its leader?  Many Jewish messianic movements came and went both before and after the time of Jesus, and they all – without exception! – came to the same tragic end (cf. Ac. 5.36-37 for a few examples of movements who preceded Jesus’).  As Luke knew well, a crucified “Messiah” was a failed Messiah, a false Messiah (cf. Lk. 24.19-21).  So, the (honest) historian has to face the question – why did this movement survive (and thrive!) when all the others ended up in the dustbin of history?

     Analogously, the modern Western Christian reading the book of The Acts of the Apostles is confronted by the striking discrepancy between the results of Paul’s proclamation of “the gospel” and those which follow our contemporary preaching and evangelism.  Why aren’t we getting mobbed, beaten, taken to court, accused of disturbing the peace and threatening peoples’ well-being, imprisoned and chased from town to town as public enemies?  Why isn’t our evangelism provoking riots (cf. Ac. 19.23-41)?  The easy answer is that we live in modern, Western, pluralistic and democratic societies and that we enjoy religious freedom as well as the right of public assembly.  Fair enough.  Still, why doesn’t our message produce anything besides either conversion or a polite indifference?  And why did Paul’s gospel leave no one indifferent?  The disturbing – yet inevitable – conclusion to draw is that there are important discrepancies between our “gospel” and that proclaimed by Paul.  So, what precisely was Paul’s gospel, and what made it so controversial?

     God’s gospel about his Son.  At the very beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul describes the content of his gospel proclamation – it is God’s “good news” concerning his son who was a descendant of David (Rom. 1.3), i.e. this is good news for Israel.  This is crucial – the Son of God is also the “son” of David.  In 2 Sam. 7.1-17, God had promised David that one of his descendants would always rule over God’s people, forever.  Moreover, God promised to be a “father” to the original son of David, Solomon (2 Sam. 7.12-14).  Therefore, David’s son was also God’s son.  Indeed, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the expression “Son of God” refers to one of two things – either the nation of Israel (e.g. Ex. 4.22) or the king of Israel (e.g. Ps. 2.7-9).  So, for Paul to call Jesus both the Son of God and a “son” of David is for Paul to say one thing about Jesus – he is Israel’s anointed king, i.e., Messiah.  So, why was Paul so determined to proclaim the gospel to “the ends of the earth”?  Well, the answer is contained in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah (“Christ”) – the long-awaited Davidic king who would save the people of God and establish God’s kingdom “on earth as in heaven” (cf. Mt. 6.10).  The Scriptures of Israel were clear – the king of Israel was destined not only to reign over the people of God, but also over all the nations (Ps. 2.7-9; Zech. 9.9-10; Dn. 7.13-14; Ps. 110.1).

     Paul’s gospel of the Lord Jesus.  This is why Paul calls Jesus “Lord”[1] (Gr: kurios; Rom. 1.4).  “Kurios” was one of the titles of the Roman emperor.  When the Caesars called themselves kurios, it was to express their sovereign rule over all of their domains.  Coins bearing the image of Caesar Augustus have been found bearing the titles of “Lord”, “Saviour” and “son of (a) god”.  A belief developed that upon death, Roman emperors underwent “apotheosis”, i.e., they were inducted into the pantheon of Roman divinities.  So, upon the death of an emperor, his successor became “son of the divine so-and-so who had just become a god”.  Emperor worship was especially prominent in the Eastern end of the empire (e.g. Ephesus), where there was a great variety of cults and esoteric beliefs/rituals.  Busts of the emperor would be set up in prominent locations in cities and people would burn incense before the statue to Caesar’s “genius”, i.e. his spirit.  This practice would eventually become a litmus test for determining who was a faithful and obedient subject of the empire (cf. Rom. 1.5) and many Christians would be martyred for refusing to offer this act of worship to the one who styled himself “the lord” of the world.

     This is precisely why, I believe, Paul was determined to proclaim Jesus as Lord everywhere where Caesar was (falsely) acknowledged as kurios.  As far as Paul was concerned, Jesus’ lordship was good news for the nations and extended far beyond that of Caesar and enfolded Caesar’s kingdom within the universal kingdom of God, which Jesus had established through his death and resurrection and over which he now presides as (the true) kurios.  Paul, as an apostle of the world’s true Lord, was duty-bound to announce Jesus’ lordship in every place that the kingdoms of man held sway, beginning with that of Caesar.  So, when Paul writes to the subjects of Lord Jesus in Rome, the city where Caesar (so he believed) reigned supreme, he pens a subversive letter.  As the book of Revelation proclaims:

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord
               and of his Messiah,
and he will reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11.15)

Paul’s apostolic activity was nothing short of revolutionary, and as the book of Acts and his letters bear out, this revolution was no less risky and bloody than those which were undertaken in the name of some earthly rival to Rome.

     How should we communicate today the reality that Jesus is Lord?  While we live in a society that prides itself on having abolished monarchies (at least, their power) and indeed all authorities claiming any kind of divine legitimacy, it remains the case that our contemporaries still lavish their allegiance on different figures – be they politicians (some still present themselves as “messiahs”), sports stars, artists, influencers, gurus, etc.  To find our present-day Caesars, we must determine who is making the most outlandish promises to people in exchange for their money, their loyalty, their votes and their “worship”.  Who is offering themselves as the solution to the world’s problems?  Who claims to give our lives meaning?  Who is shaping our lives and our aspirations?  Our task is to expose the emptiness of all of these lies and to boldly proclaim the name of the One who can truly satisfy the deepest desires of our contemporaries (all the while sanctifying them).  Our challenge is to compelling present Jesus to our neighbours, and so doing, help them to (re)discover God.  Amen.

---

[1] Not only was “Lord” a typical respectful greeting akin to the English “sir” in Greek-speaking society, it was also the way the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (LXX) rendered the divine name (YHWH; cf. 1 Cor. 8.5-6).