Imperial Cult

C. Kavin Rowe, Method, Context, and Meaning in New Testament Studies and Studies in Luke, Acts, and Paul

Rowe, C. Kavin. Method, Context, and Meaning in New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024. xii+320 pp.; Hb.; $69.99. Link to Eerdmans

Rowe, C. Kavin. Studies in Luke, Acts, and Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024. xii+363 pp.; Hb.; $75.99. Link to Eerdmans.

C. Kavin Rowe is the George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament and vice dean for faculty at Duke Divinity School. In 2009, he published World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford University Press). This book challenged a longstanding consensus in New Testament studies that Acts argues that the church and Rome can coexist harmoniously. Luke paints a positive picture of Rome and demonstrates the empire has nothing to worry about from the growing Christian movement. Instead, Rowe argued that Acts is a sophisticated political document that constructs an alternative way of life that runs counter to the Greco-Roman world. In the book, he argues, “rigorous historical thickening of the biblical text helps create the necessary hermeneutical conditions for the kind of analogical thinking required by sensitive readers of the New Testament today” (World Upside Down, 9). The book was not simply a study of Roman politics and the Book of Acts (although it certainly contributed to that discussion). Rowe was interested in how we might “think along with Acts” to answer pressing questions for today (World Upside Down, 176). For the most part, the essays in this collection continue that project. A few of the essays in these two collections pre-date World Upside Down, but many are only a few years old.Kavin Rowe

Method, Context, and Meaning collects Rowe’s work on Biblical Theology and essays on other theological topics, including four on Christianity and the Human. The first essay in the collection is one of the more controversial journal articles in recent memory. “What If It Were True? Why Study the New Testament” (originally published in New Testament Studies 68 [2022]) generated far more popular buzz than journal articles typically do. Bloggers, Twitter users, and even Reddit all had something to say about the article. To a certain extent, Rowe is responding to Stephen Young’s 2020 article, “‘Let’s Take the Text Seriously’: The Protectionist Doxa of Mainstream New Testament Studies (Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 32, 328-363).

Rowe suggests New Testament Studies needs to refocus its work on the question of truth. He selects five passages from the New Testament that make some assertion about the truth. For example, in Galatians 4:4-6 Paul claims that Jesus’s arrival “when the fullness of time came” marks a fundamental shift of the ages. The problem in Galatia is that the opponents insist on living according to the old age, not the new one defined by Jesus’s death. Rowe asks: is time affected by Jesus Christ? To what degree is Paul’s statement true? At the end of the article, reading the New Testament for truth does not entail acceptance of the claims of the New Testament (19).

Studies in Luke, Acts, and Paul. This collection of essays focuses on Luke and Acts (part one, eleven essays) and Paul (part two, four essays). I will highlight just one for this review. “Luke-Acts and the Imperial Cult” was originally published in JSNT 27 (2005) before World Upside Down. Rowe suggests several difficulties with studying the imperial cult and Luke-Acts. The first difficulty is the provincial nature of the Roman Empire. What might be true in one area of the empire is not necessarily true in another part of the empire. Clint Burnett makes a similar point in his recent monograph on imperial honors found in inscriptions (Paul and Imperial Divine Honors: Christ, Caesar, and the Gospel; Eerdmans, 2024). Rowe’s Point is that the imperial cult looks different in the West than in the East. It also may look different depending on the emperor.

Another problem is the exact background for Luke-Acts. Should we read the book in the light of Augustus-Tiberius (when the events take place in Luke) or perhaps Nero (when the book of Acts takes place), or should we read the books when they were written (under Domitian)? This makes a difference since the imperial cult is quite different in A.D. 30-60 than in A.D. 85-95. Rowe suggests our ignorance about the destination of Luke-Acts is a serious problem. Not only is there uncertainty about when they were written, but to whom the books are addressed is unknown. We do not know the precise conditions of the imperial cult for the author or the recipient.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the imperial cult is never directly mentioned in Luke-Acts. Anyone traveling throughout the Empire would encounter the imperial cult in virtually every city. It is, therefore, impossible that Luke knew nothing about it, but he also says nothing. Does this imply that Luke is pro-Roman? Or is he just trying to suppress any talk of the imperial called to avoid discussing how the church in the empire relate? All this is exasperated by Luke’s clear goal of situating the story within the Roman world by mentioning locations, locations we know were dominated by the imperial cult at the time. Rowe cites C. K. Barrett: “No Roman official would have filtered out so much of what to him would be theological and ecclesiastical rubbish in order to reach so tiny a grain of relevant apology” (Luke the Historian [1970], page 63 cited by Rowe, page 12).

A way through these problems is the description of Jesus Christ as Lord in Peter’s sermon to Cornelius in Acts 10:36. Depending on the English translation, the words “he is Lord of all” appear in parenthesis, suggesting these words are Luke’s, not Peter’s. Rowe points out the use of the demonstrative οὗτος (“this one,” often translated as “he” (NRSVue; ESV; NIV2011 has “who”) intentionally contrasts Jesus Christ as Lord with the Emperor who claimed to be the lord of all. The use of κύριος in imperial inscriptions and other propaganda is well-known.   The context is the conversion of a Roman soldier of some rank in Caesarea, the heart of imperial propaganda in the region. Rowe argues any reader in the Empire “would have heard the stress of this claim in connection with the Roman Empire and his cult” (15). For Rowe, Acts 10:36 is a “tiny grain” that can be magnified beyond its intrinsic significance. The article then points to other examples of κύριος in Luke-Acts. However, there was no compulsion to participate in the Imperial Cult until Decius in the middle of the third century, even if Pliny’s letters suggest some confusion in imperial policy toward Christians at the time of Trajan.

Conclusion. Essay collections like these two volumes are always welcome since it is often difficult (or expensive) to find journals and obscure essay collections. I have always found Rowe’s work to be helpful to my work, so these are valuable contributions to New Testament studies. By reprinting these essays, Eerdmans provides easy access to a wealth of scholarship on the New Testament.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of these books. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

D. Clint Burnett, Paul and Imperial Divine Honors: Christ, Caesar, and the Gospel

Burnett, D. Clint. Paul and Imperial Divine Honors: Christ, Caesar, and the Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024. xxvii+332 pp. Hb; $49.99.  Link to Eerdmans

In his Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions (Hendrickson Academic, 2020, reviewed here), Burnett hoped that “one day more New Testament students who use inscriptions in their interpretation of his documents and the historical reconstructions of early Christianity” (p. 165). Paul and Imperial Divine Honors is his first step toward reaching that goal.

Divine Honors

Burnett describes an inscription from Gythium (modern Gytheio) in his nineteen-page introduction to the book. The inscription is the sacred law of Gythium and includes the fullest known portrait of an imperial festival ever discovered. This was an eight-day festival honoring five Julio-Claudians (Augustus, Tiberius, Augustus’s wife Livia, and two of Tiberius’s sons). The festival also honored a Roman general and two local benefactors. The festival included sacred process sessions and sacrifices on each day devoted to the various dedicatees. This is a grant of divine honors to certain Roman rulers by an individual city. Although this illustrates what an imperial festival may have looked like, Burnett is clear: this inscription does not describe every imperial festival, nor can it be used to describe the granting of imperial honors in every Roman city.

Burnett must define what he means by “divine honors” clearly. He avoids using the phrase “imperial cult” because it implies that there was some centralized form of worship. Instead, he focuses his attention on individual local grants of divine honors. To define these divine honors, he proposes studying the material culture in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth to demonstrate how each city gave divine honors differently. In doing so, Burnett demonstrates that there is no evidence that terms like kurios and soter were used as imperial titles, nor was euangelion in these inscriptions when Paul wrote his letters. But this does not mean Burnett is “an apologist in favor of imperial divine honors” (238). He wants to reconstruct early Christianity as accurately as possible. The divine honors granted by these cities are still arrogant and blasphemous, but it goes beyond the evidence to include kurios and soter among those honors.

This challenges the assumption among many New Testament scholars that when Paul uses language like kurios and soter he does so subversively, using “anti-imperial rhetoric.” Scholars as early as Deissmann (and more recently, N. T. Wright) assume all Divine imperial honors are the same. If a divine honor (such as kurios in Pergamum, referring to Trajan, for example) is found elsewhere, it is often assumed to apply in other Roman cities, such as Philippi or Corinth. In his commentary on Romans and Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright states that kurios and euangelion echo imperial rhetoric. Wright suggests, “Caesar is guilty of giving himself divine.” Burnette points out that the earliest evidence for this comes from A.D. 67 in Greece, after Paul’s death. Aside from Caligula, there was no Julio-Claudian demand for divine honors, and several specifically declined those honors when offered while they were still alive. This includes Nero, who did not want to divine honors while he lived. Burnett concludes, “Most Julio-Claudians tried to curb such honors for themselves from communities under their dominion while they were still alive” (233). Therefore, Cesar was never guilty of giving himself divine honors. With respect to the title kurios as a divine honor, Burnett concludes “There is no evidence that the city [of Thessalonica] hailed any Julio-Claudian, dead or alive, by that epithet, even though Thessalonica called Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Claudius gods after their deaths, and Livia a goddess during her lifetime” (147).

Burnett aims to create a localized, contextual profile of divine honors, using inscriptions, coins, archaeology, and literary sources when available. Each chapter briefly sketches how New Testament scholars describe imperial honors in their commentaries. For example, Karl Donfried considers inscriptions and other evidence to argue that some terms Paul uses have a political connotation. This includes words like basileia (βασιλεία, kingdom; 2:12), parousia (παρουσία, coming, 4:15), and apantēsis (ἀπάντησις , meeting; 4:17). Burnett is used that this generalizing approach to divine honors is inadequate and problematic. Evidence from first-century Thessalonica does not support the idea that parousia and apantēsis are technical terms for a royal imperial visit (109).

For Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, Burnett catalogs the divine honors granted by the local government for each of the Julio-Claudians. This includes inscriptions, coins, and archaeology (usually statues portraying the emperor as a god). Each chapter includes a list of imperial cult officials known from inscriptions and the location of the imperial divine honors (when known). Following this data, he suggests how the imperial divine honors surveyed in the chapter shed light on Paul’s letter to that city. Terms like kurios, parousia, and apantēsis were not used in imperial honors, and euangelion was not a technical imperial term. Nevertheless, he suggests that a study of divine honors indicates that Christians were mistreated by their non-Christian counterparts for more complex reasons than a “Christ-versus-Caesar paradigm (148). 1 Thessalonians 1:6-9 states that Christians faced “much affliction” because they have turned away from idols and were eagerly awaiting the return of the Lord.

Burnett knows that these conclusions differ from those of other Pauline interpreters who see Paul using subversive, anti-imperial rhetoric in Romans 13. However, this does not mean Paul was pro-empire. How could Paul, who clearly abhors any sort of idolatry, ask Christians in Rome to submit to those who celebrate imperial divine honors? For Burnett, the answer lies in Paul’s apocalyptic theology (236). This Jewish perspective is most clearly presented in Daniel. In Daniel 6, for example, the emperor demands a divine honor: to receive prayer from the entire Empire. Daniel refuses, and he faces execution in the lion’s den. Burnett makes a startling observation: “Nowhere in the story does Daniel accuse Darius of blasphemy because he desired divine honors for himself” (237).  Daniel was able to maintain his devotion to the god of Israel, all the while serving an empire that demanded divine honors for itself. How is this possible? For Paul, the Empire is under the cosmic power of sin. Like Daniel, Paul considers the rulers of this age to have already been defeated. Although Burnett does not mention 3 Maccabees or 4 Maccabees, these apocryphal books also illustrate similar attitudes toward blasphemous rulers.

The book includes a fifty-four-page appendix of inscriptions mentioned in the book, including the Greek and Latin transcriptions and English translations. Burnett provides provenance and date with the source in the inscription collections. This is extremely helpful for scholars looking to read the evidence directly. The book is richly illustrated with black-and-white photographs of coins, inscriptions, and other archaeological evidence.

Conclusion. Burnett certainly achieves his goal of providing a database of inscriptions for three Greek cities that are important for interpreting Paul’s letters to Philippi, Thessalonians, and Corinth. His challenge to popular writing on Paul’s relationship with the Roman Empire should convince most to abandon generalizing comments about imperial divine honors or the imperial cult. This correction is helpful. However, he has limited his study to Julio-Claudians from the years that Paul wrote. His conclusions may look different for later divine honors in another location, such as Asia Minor, rather than Greece. However, his point is clear: evidence from the late century Ephesus or Pergamum should not be used to interpret Philippians, Thessalonians, or Corinthians.

Burnett blogs on inscriptions and the New Testament. Follow @DClintBurnett1.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

The Lamb and the 144,000 – Revelation 14:1-5

Just as Revelation 13 ended with the beast writing his name on the forehead of his followers, Revelation 14:1-5 describes God writing his name and the name of the Lamb on the heads of the 144,000 witnesses introduced in Revelation 7. John intentionally contrasts those who have the mark of the beast with the 144,000 witnesses. As Gordon Fee observes, “this passage has had as rocky a history of interpretation as any other in the book, and maybe more than most” (Revelation, 189).

lamb of god at dormition abbey jerusalem

John sees the Lamb and the 144,000 witnesses on Mount Zion. Is this scene in heaven where the Lamb is seated on the throne with God, or is this on earth in literal Jerusalem? Zion is a Hebrew word which means “citadel”, and probably first referred to the fortress of David in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6-10).  The name became associated with the temple mount after Solomon’s reign, Psalm 2:6, 46:4, 78:68-69. In the Psalms, Zion could refer just to the temple mount or to all Jerusalem, and eventually Zion was idealized (Psalm 125) and became an image for heaven (Heb 12:22). Since this is the only place in Revelation where Mount Zion is mentioned, it is difficult to be sure what John has in mind.

Robert Mounce, for example, argued John refers to a heavenly Zion, citing Hebrews 12:22 and Galatians 4:26, the “Jerusalem above.” Like Revelation 4-5, the “entire scene is one of praise before the throne of heaven” (Revelation, 267). It is possible this passage indicates the 144,000 have already been put to death and are in heaven at the throne of God.

On the other hand, George Ladd argues this gathering is on the earth; the 144,000 are those who have been preserved through the great tribulation and are in the messianic kingdom when the heavenly Jerusalem descends to earth (Revelation, 188-90). Dispensationalist John Walvoord took the reference to Zion as looking forward to Christ’s reign from Jerusalem in the Millennium (Revelation, 214-15). Buist Fanning refers to this paragraph as a “preview of judgment and victory for the Lamb” and argues it “anticipates the scene, soon to be presented in full (19:11-20:6), when Christ will return to earth…to conquer the beast and his armies and establish his rule from earthly Zion” (Fanning, Revelation, 388).

There are several references to an eschatological pilgrimage in the Old Testament. Isaiah 4:5 and Joel 3:5 describe the nations streaming to Zion, In Isaiah 24:23 the Lord almighty will reign from Zion and “in Jerusalem there will be deliverance (cf. Isa 31:4; Micah 4:7; Joel 2:32).

Other Second Temple period apocalypses developed a similar idea of eschatological victory over God’s enemies on Mount Zion:

Jubilees 1.28 And the LORD will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all the children of Jacob and king upon Mount Zion forever and ever. And Zion and Jerusalem will be holy.”

2 Baruch 40:1 The last ruler who is left alive at that time will be bound, whereas the entire host will be destroyed. And they will carry him on Mount Zion, and my Anointed One will convict him of all his wicked deeds and will assemble and set before him all the works of his hosts.

4 Ezra 13:35–39 But he will stand on the top of Mount Zion. 36 And Zion will come and be made manifest to all people, prepared and built, as you saw the mountain carved out without hands. 37 And he, my Son, will reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness (this was symbolized by the storm), 38 and will reproach them to their face with their evil thoughts and with the torments with which they are to be tortured (which were symbolized by the flames); and he will destroy them without effort by the law (which was symbolized by the fire). 39 And as for your seeing him gather to himself another multitude that was peaceable. This song is unusual in that it is the only song mentioned in Revelation that is not quoted (in full or in part.)  Aune 2:808 says that this indicates that wither John cannot understand the song, or that he is not a part of the 144,000 who are singing the song and therefore does not know the song.

Two additional features of this scene are unusual. First, the “harpers are harping their harps” (KJV, the NIV avoids the redundancy by translating “playing their harps”). This is a rare case were popular images of heaven have some support in Scripture, but there is nothing here to imply everyone who goes to heaven plays a harp!

Second, the Lamb is standing. In Revelation 5 the Lamb was seated on the throne. It is likely this an allusion Psalm 2:6. There the Lord says, “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.”  George Caird thinks much of Revelation is an exposition of Psalm 2 as Christian Scripture (Revelation, 178). In Acts 7:56 Stephen sees the heavens open and “the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” That the Son of Man is standing is usually taken as a sign of impending judgment.

I think this scene on Mount Zion needs to be read along with the actions of the second beast in Revelation 13. Even though there is another “and then I looked” signaling another unit, John’s intent is to contrast the followers of the beast and the followers of the Lamb.

What is the Mark of the Beast? – Revelation 13:16-18

The second beast causes all people to be marked on their right hand or forehead. If they do not have the mark of the beast, they cannot buy or sell. One of the most tantalizing aspects in the New Testament is the meaning of the mark of the beast. John tells us it is the name of the beast, but it is converted into numbers: 666. John then invites the readers to use wisdom to calculate the number of the beast, inadvertently beginning 2000 years of speculation of what the number 666 means.

Two Beasts medieval apocalypse

I will start by disappointing some readers: The number of the beast does not refer to any American politician. It does not calculate to Obama or Trump, nor does it refer to the mega-wealthy pulling the strings of the government (Soros, Gates, Bezos, etc.) It does not refer to a Visa card implanted in your head or a chip secretly hidden away in the new flu vaccine. Feel free to leave a comment with your favorite modern interpretation of the Mark of the Beast. In fact, 666 is not an “unlucky number.” It is not the devil’s number, and there is nothing to fear. One famous Christian-owned hobby store will give you a penny discount if your total comes to $6.66. I will admit there was a house near where i grew up that had the street number 666; we called it “the devil’s house,” but that was (mostly) a joke. Readers of Revelation need to check their modern conspiracy theories and focus on what John intended to communicate by the mark of the beast and the number 666. Here is an older post with more on the number.

Like everything else in Revelation, any attempt to understand what the mark of the beast is (or is not) must start with the Old Testament background. In Ezekiel 9, the Lord instructs a man clothed in linen to “pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.”  Those who do not receive this mark are slaughtered. The mark is the letter tav, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Moshe Greenberg points out similarities to the mark on the doorpost in Egypt at Passover (Exod 12:23) or the mark on Aaron’s head on the forehead (Exod 28:38; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20; AB, 177).  It is also possible that this marking is a parody of the Jewish practice of binding scripture on the hand or forehead during prayer (phylacteries).

The beast is not the only character in Revelation marking his followers. In the very next paragraph after the beast marks his followers his name, the Lord marks the 144,000 with the name of the Lamb and his Father on their foreheads (Revelation 14:1). Later in the book, the servants of the Lamb in the New Jerusalem have his name on their foreheads (22:4). The Great Whore has a name tattooed on her head (Mystery Babylon), just as Christ bears a name no one knows but humself (19:12). The words “King of kings and Lord of Lords” are written on his robe and thigh of the rider in 19:16 (Aune, 2:734).

What is the Mark of the Beast? People were marked in the ancient world for any number of things. For example, runaway slaves or captured soldiers might be branded or tattooed with a mark indicating their status.  Third Maccabees 2:27-29 describes steps taken against Alexandrian Jews, including being branded with an ivy leaf, a symbol of the worship of Dionysus. (See also these posts on Apostasy in Third Maccabees and The Incident with the Elephants.)

Third Maccabees 2:27-29  He proposed to inflict public disgrace on the Jewish community, and he set up a stone on the tower in the courtyard with this inscription: 28 “None of those who do not sacrifice shall enter their sanctuaries, and all Jews shall be subjected to a registration involving poll tax and to the status of slaves. Those who object to this are to be taken by force and put to death; 29 those who are registered are also to be branded on their bodies by fire with the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus, and they shall also be reduced to their former limited status.”

The noun translated mark (χάραγμα) refers to something that is engraved, stamped, or etched, such as an inscription or a coin (BDAG). Acts 17:29 uses the word for an idol, “formed by the art of men.” But it is also used for written letters or an endorsement on a document, like an official signature or stamp (BrillDAG). As a modern analogy, this is similar to an officially embossed notary stamp. So the physical mark could be a brand or tattoo, or an official endorsement of some kind.

Because the mark permits buying and selling, many commentators on Revelation see the mark as limiting participation in economic life to those who have completed their obligations of emperor worship. Greg Beale states, “The mark is clearly figurative of the ways in which the state keeps check on whether people submit to compulsory idol worship” (Beale, Revelation, 715).

Regardless of the background, the mark represents the final act of loyalty to the beast. By marking themselves, the people are accepting the Beast as their lord and savior and rejecting God. Those who refuse the mark are making their declaration for God and against the system of the Beast. And like the examples of Daniel and his friends, those who refuse the mark must be willing to die on account of this refusal to acknowledge the power and authority of the beast and his kingdom.

The mystery of this passage is in 13:17-18. The mark of the beast is the name of the beast, or the number of his name, 666. There are no numbers in many ancient languages, so letters are sometimes substituted for numbers.  A=1, B=2, etc. For example, there is a famous graffiti in Pompeii that reads “I love her whose number is 545.”  Jewish Gematria found all sorts of meanings of words in scripture by converting words to numbers and back again. Here is another Gematria Calculator with English, Hebrew, and Greek.

John invites the reader to figure this out, knowing that the name adds up to 666. Who might this be? In the early church, several names were suggested, including a Greek word meaning “to deny,” which implies that the name of the Beast was a denial of the Lord. The full Latin title used on coins of Domitian, the emperor at the time of John, allegedly adds up to 666. But the most common suggestion is that the number 666 refers to Nero Caesar, but in the Hebrew spelling of the name.

It may be best to conclude that John and his readers knew the clue that unlocked the mystery of the number and who it referred to, and that we are unable to figure it out with any certainty today.

Whatever the mark is, it represents a final declaration of loyalty. At this point in the plot of Revelation, one is either for God or against him.

Who is the Lord of Earth and Sea? – Revelation 13

Over the last few posts on Revelation 13 I have argued the two beasts apply the imagery of the four empires in Daniel 7 to the Roman Empire. Both depict a final empire led by an arrogant ruler who demands worship as a god. In Daniel, that is Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3) and the arrogant little horn, undoubtedly the Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jewish people leading to the Maccabean Revolt. In Revelation, John’s first beast is led by a parody of Jesus Christ who demands worship from the whole world and is supported by wondrous signs performed by the second beast. Setting aside the exact identification of the blasphemous horn in Revelation 13:1-4 (Caligula, Nero, or Domitian), John certainly is equating the final empire in Daniel to Rome.

In both cases, the empire persecutes the people of God who refuse to worship the empire. Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego are sentenced to death in the fiery furnace; Daniel is sentenced to death in the Lion’s Den. In Revelation 13, the first beast wages war on God’s people. Some of those who refused to worship the beast or take his mark were beheaded. They are raised from the dead and reign with Christ for 1000 years (Rev 20:4-5). John says they were beheaded on account of their testimony, or witness for Jesus and for the Word of God. Earlier in the book John refers to Antipas of Pergamum as a “faithful witness” who did not deny his faith and was killed as a result. The letters to the seven churches indicate some Christians were already suffering and some were killed because of their refusal to worship the empire.

John is doing a kind of prophetic exegesis. He reads Daniel in the light of current events and highlights certain similarities between Daniel’s view of the empires and Rome. This is not unusual. There are many examples of Exodus language used in this way in the Old Testament. Many scholars consider Isaiah 40-55 calling for a new Exodus, this time out of Babylon at the end of the exile. It has become quite popular to describe the Gospel of Mark as presenting Jesus’s ministry as a kind of New Exodus. The seven trumpets re-used the plagues to describe judgment on the world (Rev 8-9).

But John also has imperial propaganda in mind. Like any political power, the Roman Empire used propaganda to create a narrative about itself in order to maintain control over a massive territory. The art and architecture of the Roman world told the story of a great world empire which brought peace and prosperity to the world. Even the coins used by everyone in the marketplace declared the emperor as a divine son of God or associated the emperor with a god. One could not enter a city in the Roman world without being overwhelmed with the awesome power of Rome. That Rome is the beast in Revelation is clear. Perhaps this is veiled in chapter 13, but by Revelation 17 it will be obvious John is describing the empire as a great whore drunk on the blood of the saints.

Trajan Inscription, 2018

In Pergamum there is an inscription which illustrates Roman imperial propaganda. It is after the book of Revelation was written, but it is a remarkable background for Revelation 13. Pergamum had a massive imperial cult center. It is possible there was a temple on the acropolis dedicated to earlier emperors, but the one excavated and restored for tourists today is dedicated to Trajan. This inscription begins with the word, αὐτοκρᾰ́τωρα and is followed by a series of imperial relationships (son of Nerva, divine Caesar). The third line begins with Τραϊανὸς, Trajan, the one worthy of worship, σεβαστός. σεβαστός is the title given to Augustus. The fourth line has two of Trajan’s titles, Γερμανικός (conferred in AD 97 before he became emperor) and Δᾱκία refers to his conquest over Dakia, a region in eastern Europe; the title was given to him in AD 101-102.

The fifth and sixth lines declare “of the earth and the sea, Lord.” The “earth and sea” is to say, the whole world. Revelation 13 has a beast from the sea and earth. Notice κύριος is on the sixth line by itself, emphasizing the claim that Trajan is the Lord of the whole world. This inscription declares Trajan is the son of the divine rulers of Rome and conqueror of Rome’s enemies, the lord of the whole world. It is placed in a massive temple dedicated to the worship of Rome and the emperor. This is not some graffiti scratched on a wall in an obscure location, this inscription was placed in a prominent location to be seen by people as they honored the empire.

How would a Jewish person react to this inscription claiming that Trajan is the Lord? Who might a Christian react to the assertion a human emperor is the Lord of the whole world? At the beginning of Revelation, God declares himself to be the Lord, the almighty (παντοκράτωρ, 1:8). In Revelation 4:8 the angelic creatures worship the one seated on the throne day and night saying “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty” (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, 4:8, cf. 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 19:6, 21:22). God is the Lord of all the earth (τοῦ κυρίου τῆς γῆς, 11:4). Revelation 17:14 declares the Lamb will overcome the beast because he is the “Lord of lords and King of kings” (cf. 19:16).

Any Christian hearing this kind of propaganda would be forced to make a choice. Could they bow their head and appear to honor Rome while silently praying to Jesus? Would that kind of compromise endanger their faith? In the case of Daniel, he was willing to die rather than worship the empire. That is the case for the faithful witnesses in Revelation as well.

This is a problem all Christians must face at some point. Modern governments still used propaganda to promote a narrative, and they are just as likely to demand worship (although we call it patriotic loyalty now). How can Christians today (in what ever country they live) maintain their faith and not worship the empire?