Both articles bring out the first-century background of the Roman Imperial cult. This background is crucial since it sets up the point of tension with the Roman society--its culture, religion, economics, and politics. These Christians in the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 had to navigate an increasingly hostile culture. Opening up this background dynamic helps bridge the hermeneutical gap and provide practical resources and examples for our time.
Charles begins his essay with these words:
"At the core of the Christians' dilemma in the first century was their refusal to adore the national gods and affirm Roman Imperial pretensions. Christian non-compliance in this regard constituted rebellion against the established order, at the center of which stood the emperor, hailed as Kyrios, 'Lord,' incarnate. Although conditions reflected up to the time of the writing of the Apocalypse suggest that Christians were not regularly martyred, the writer foresees an ominous development. At issue is a clash of two irreconcilable worldviews. At its core, the apocaplyse represents a challenge to the Roman principate. The all-encompassing machinery of the imperium Romanum is utterly bewitching to the world (Revelation 13 and 17), leaving none unaffecte; it thus calls for a prophetic consciousness." (pp. 85-86)Charles focuses on Revelation chapter 5 with its depiction of the heavenly throne room with worship being offered to the Lamb. Charles argues that the imagery of chapter 5 is not merely general in nature but would have evoked Imperial overtones with a subversive twist: true worship was being offered to Christ the Lamb and not to the Roman emperor. Here are the words of Charles:
"In 5:1-14 the reader catches a glimpse of both the political ramifications of Imperial pretensions as well as the religious implications of absolutist Imperial claims. Both kingly and priestly imagery are employed to reassure John's audience.
"Attention has been drawn earlier in this century as well as more recently to the 'polemical parallelism' between the Imperial cult and early Christianity. The language of adoration and worship associated with the former is transferred by the writer of the Apocalypse from a defied emperor to Christ. Most conspicuous in Revelation is the emphasis on ritural and ceremony. Ritual demonstrates precisely where human loyalties are to be found. To affirm the sovereignty of one is in fact to deny it to another. Worship, hence, is the confession of one's all. In the Apocalypse, the reader is confronted with an absolute antithesis; no compromise is possible. Since confession of one is clearly a negation of another, the Christian community is challenged with a dilemma stemming from claims of ultimacy by the Imperium." (p. 87)The Christian allegiance to Christ Jesus was "perceived a menace to imperial unity and supremacy." (p. 88)
"Inasmuch as the Christians called Jesus Kyrios/Dominus, the same title could not legitimately be ascribed to the emperor--a dilemma interpreted plainly enough by Pliny. Ultimately, for the first-century Christian the matter comes down to a fundamental antithesis: Divus Imperator ('Emperor Divine') or Christus Dominus ('Christ the Lord'). Christians refused to acknowledge Caesar as god-man, while at the same time proclaiming Christ to the God-Man who ruled even Caesar. Such de-sanctifying of the state was certainly not lost on the emperor himself. The Christian disciple is thus at root an imperial antagonist; one's devotion cannot be split." (p. 88)Charles notes that even the specific imagery of Revelation 5 and the throne room vision of the Lamb has resonances with the Imperial cult.
"The vision, as it turns out, is heavily imbued with 'imperial' overtones. The 'Lamb--ie., the 'Lion-Lamb' who is simultaneously 'savior' and 'conqueror'--is revealed in terms that are uniquely and painfully familar to a first-century audience living in Asia Minor. Borrowing images and epithets suggesting conscious 'polemical parallels,' John portrays Jesus in a manner that causes even the glories of the Imperial throne to pale by contrast." (p. 89)The historical background regarding Emperor worship is also something to be noted. "Worship" is a key theme in the book of Revelation and the ancient Roman world was filled with actual religious devotion to the Emperor.
"From 3 B.C., at the formation of the Octavian-Antony-Lepidus triumvirate, until the time of Diocletian, eighty-three places of consecration/deification were erected in Rome, indicatiing the relative influence of the Imperial cult. Augustus, as the inscriptions show, was being worshipped in the East as 'a Savior... through whom have come glad tidings.' While it is true that Augustus never allowed himself to be openly designated a god and worship of Augustus in Rome and Italy was nominally forbidden, the poets of his age--Proportius, Virgil, Horace and Ovid--were lavish in their praise of him as Deus." (p. 91)Caligula and Nero had pretensions of divinity. Coming to Domitian, the third of the Flavian rulers, he becomes much more inclined to accepting Divine praise so that "he became the object of widespread worship, marking a departure from the moderacy of earlier Julio-Claudian emperors." (p. 91)
Even the physical dynamics of Nero's throne are helpful in understanding the throne room scene of Revelation five. Charles describes Nero's throne:
"Nero had built for himself a rotunda that represented the cosmos. The structure rotated day and night. The middle region of the rotunda was the region of the sun. Roman poets appealed for Nero to take his seat exactly in the middle of the universe, otherwise the cosmos would lose its equilibrium. From this position the emperor judged, determing the fate of humans. He thus fulfilled the role of fatorum arbiter, ho pantokrator, ie., the cosmic god of fate." (p. 93)John's description, based on the heavenly revelation, provides a counter-image of a glorious throne with the Lamb--Jesus Christ--in the middle of it. This is just one more example of a "polemical parallel" which manifests the transcendent nature and role of the Lamb of God.
This all is part of John's implicit political philosophy given his historical situation in the Roman empire. The words of Charles are instructive:
"To be sure, Christianity was per se not opposed to the state; the Apostle Paul viewed it as divinely appointed with a civil function in the temporal order. Rather, it was Rome's pretense of absolute authority and ultimate allegiance that for the Christian disciple was intolerable; hence, the dilemma for the Christian community." (p. 90)With this understanding, the contemporary Church can glean insights and resources in the development of her stance against political regimes that seek to overwhelm the Church with oppressive, Jesus-denying policies.
