The Gospels and Acts

When we are reading through the pages of the New Testament, we are often faced with
statements such as, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities.” (Rom 13:1a) or
“Remind the believers to be subject to rulers and authorities” (Tit 3:1a) and “Submit yourselves for
the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (1 Pet. 2:13). These passages have traditionally been
interpreted as encouraging Christian’s accommodation to the ideals of the broader surrounding
Greco-Roman culture, which seems to stand in stark contrast with the Gospel and Jesus’ sayings
and attitudes, as we have argued before.1 Some would argue the same could be said about Paul’s
message to the gentiles.2
We will look at the broader context of the New Testament writings by looking at some further
examples of anti-imperial rhetoric, and then we will try to address the wider issues of
egalitarian/hierarchical structures in the early church and the changes that these have suffered
over time.
This will help us to get a clearer picture of how we are supposed to understand the differences
between several New Testament writings. We will then be able to answer the question: Is there a
way of having a credible public theology capable of integrating both submission and resistance
without going to the extremes of pietism3 or activism?4
The Gospels and Acts
Matthew
The opening lines of the gospel of Matthew are for many some of the most boring verses in the
entire Bible. The long lists of names that seem to make little sense to us modern readers. And yet
there is a hidden anti-imperial agenda there. The genealogies of the Roman emperors mattered a
great deal; being able to trace one’s ancestry to the gods was considered an important part of
being an Emperor.5
Matthew, very much in contrast to this imperial modal, provides Jesus with no divine genealogy. He
bases his genealogy on Abraham and David who, though pivotal figures in the biblical history,
obviously did not trace their origins in the divine realm. On the contrary, they cannot even claim
humanly important ancestry. (Jesus is going to fit the pattern by being born into a very poor
Galilean family). But both Abraham and David are chosen by God. It is not the Emperor and his
gods who bestow good gifts on the nations, it is the promise given by God to Abraham (Gen 12:1)
and later expanded on through David (2 Sam. 7).
Warren Carter, one of the leading New Testament scholars on the Empire in the New Testament
observes:
“The genealogy does not attest Rome's election by the gods, outline Rome's accomplishments,
assert Rome's sovereignty, or proclaim the emperor's agency in manifesting the gods' blessings.
Instead, it asserts God's sovereignty and identifies God's agents. God has elected Israel and Jesus
to accomplish God's purposes.” 6
Some have gone so far as to call these genealogies “fake”. They do not mean they are not real or
invented. What they mean is that they do not conform to the expectations set up by the Empire
and so they open a space for the genuine newness of the gospel message brought by somebody
else than the Emperor.7
Mark
On the other hand, Mark’s gospel, even without a birth narrative makes Jesus’ divine origin, and
thus his claim to lordship, quite clear from the beginning (Mk 1:1). This claim is then recognized by
many others throughout the Gospel. Most notably by the demon-possessed man called “Legion”
and by the Roman centurion at the foot of his cross.8
Luke-Acts
Luke places first the birth narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus, and in case, the readers did not
get the point, he adds a genealogy in chapter 3, tracing Jesus lineage back to Adam, and through
him to God (Lk 3:38).
Many and varied have been the attempts to harmonize the genealogies we find in Matthew and
Luke. Personally, I subscribe to the view that sees the two as capable of being reconciled.
However, the approach I see as most helpful operates based on appreciation of the oral-written
nature of early Christianity. Furthermore, we need to get used to the fact that real human authors
were involved in the transmitting and writing processes of the New Testament. As a result, the
possibility that people make a mistake when combining different sources is ever present and must
be taken into account.9
Luke works very much like any other ancient historian following the methods of ancient
historiography.10 This would explain why his overall purpose seems to be much more Roman-
friendly than that of the other Gospel writers. However, it cannot be claimed that Luke, by
describing the Roman governors in a predominantly positive light, would somehow legitimize or
commend the Roman government to his audience.11
How can we account for such a change of attitude between Mark, Matthew and Luke? First, let us
remember that each gospel was written to a specific community, with its specific needs. We find
rather normal the idea that the Gospels were written for all Christians. This is so because we have
our New Testament canon, which came into being gradually during the first centuries. The early
church community spread across different parts of the Roman Empire may not have had all four
Gospels to read or to have them read. Therefore, Mark, Matthew and Luke, tailor their narratives to
suit the particular needs of their community.
If we assume the Markan priority, Matthew as coming next, and then Luke using the two other
accounts as the last one to put together an early history of Jesus and his disciples, 12 we can argue
his community is dealing with the question of how to instruct those who join the community, and
yet remain closely linked to the structures of the Empire. Luke, then, seems to be concerned with
reconciling the idea that one can serve the empire in the military or in an administrative function
and still be a Christian (Note the distinctly Lukan command to the soldiers in Lk. 3:14). 13 Could
Theophilus, about whose identity much has been speculated, 14 be such a Roman citizen who
occupies an important position within the Empire and faces a dilemma as to how he should act
upon his new faith?
John
Much could be said about the fourth gospel and its anti-imperial message as well.
Cretans are liars, Corithianize

1
Article on God’s empire
2
3
Pietism represents a view with a sharp separation between earthly calling and Christian life where only the “spiritual” is
worth pursuing.
4
Activism is seen as an activity not empowered by the Gospel but rather fueled by mere political agenda or ideology.
5
Hekster, Olivier. "Descendants of gods: legendary genealogies in the Roman Empire." The impact of imperial Rome on
religions, ritual and religious life in the Roman empire. Brill, 2006. 24-35.
6
Warren, Carter. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 77.
7
Fake genealogies podcast quote
8
For a more detailed treatment see our article mentioned above.
9
Sivertsen, Barbara. "New testament genealogies and the families of Mary and Joseph." Biblical Theology Bulletin 35.2
(2005): 43-50.
10
Fung, Benjamin, Aida B. Spencer, and Francois P. Viljoen. "Do the writing methodologies of Greco-Roman historians have
an impact on Luke’s writing order?." HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies [Online], 73.3 (2017): 10 pages. Web. 14
Apr. 2020
11
Yoder, Joshua.
12
Bird, Michael F.
13
Esler, Philip F. 210
14
Creamer, Jennifer M, Spencer, Aida B, & Vijoen, Francois P. (2014). Who is Theophilus? Discovering the original reader of
Luke-Acts. In die Skriflig , 48(1), 1-07

The Gospels and Acts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gospels and Acts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gospels and Acts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When we are reading through the pages of the New Testament, we are often faced with

The Gospels and Acts

Cretans are liars, Corithianize

You might also like