Last week, we studied at the concept of Jesus’ authority in the New Testament, and how it relates to the Kingdom. This week, we focus on understanding the concept of the gospel, and the Church, in respect to authority.
Authority and the Gospel
If Luke is determined to link ‘gospel’ with ‘kingdom’ in an understanding of Messianic authority, what are we to understand by the term ‘gospel’ (Greek evangelion)?
It is becoming increasingly recognised that evangelion does not mean simply ‘good news’ as often assumed. The term is deliberately borrowed from the terminology belonging to the Roman Imperial cult, or Emperor worship.
Both before and after its adoption by the New Testament community, evangelion was often used in a particular way in regard to the Emperor, either in relation to his birth or regarding his visit to a locality.1
Consider for example this extract from a Roman inscription dated 9BC: “Providence has filled Augustus with divine power for the benefit of humanity … with the result that the birthday of our god [meaning Augustus] signalled the beginning of evangelion [good news] for the world”.2
With regard to the whole inscription from which this extract is taken, Graham Stanton observes: “The coming of the divine Augustus as good news had been eagerly expected. He came as saviour and benefactor, bringing benefits for all. He has brought peace and will continue to do so. He himself was the good news.”3
Nor is this an isolated example. Stanton cites a number of other examples from Roman inscriptions and writings, showing a consistent use over at least two centuries. With regard to an Emperor’s birth, ‘evangelion’ implied the inauguration of a benevolent rule, which the rhetoric asserts will bring much blessing to the populace. Regarding an impending visit from an Emperor, the proclamation of ‘evangelion’ normally implied the visit would bestow privileges or delegated power on the prominent citizens of the city. Therefore, in the context of the Imperial cult, the expression ‘evangelion’ is related either to a new ruler’s birth, or to a proclamation of an Imperial visit which will devolve power and authority.4
In the context of the Imperial cult, the expression ‘evangelion’ is related either to a new ruler’s birth, or to a proclamation of an Imperial visit which will devolve power and authority.
Gerd Theissen understands a similar connotation. Commenting on the New Testament writings as literature, he observes that “The message content of the gospels and letters was a proclamation of lordship, an evangelion. This was as true for Mark as it was for Romans.”5 Theissen observes that “The noun ‘gospel’ is attested primarily in the imperial ideology”, and regarding Mark’s Gospel he comments that “the Gospel of Mark adopts the form of biography … and fills it with the content of the proclamation of a ruler as good news (evangelion).”6
Like Stanton, Theissen also points out that “At the time when Mark's Gospel originated, when someone spoke of good news (evangelia) for the whole world the thought evoked was that of a new emperor. According to Josephus, the ascent of Vespasian as emperor was celebrated in the year 69 … as evangelia.”7 Theissen observes that Mark uses the term in just such a context. Mark 13:10 says that the “good news” is to be preached “to all nations”; Mark 14:9 that it is to be “proclaimed in the whole world”.8 So, Theissen implies, Mark is deliberately evoking the aura of an Imperial proclamation.
Rowan Williams describes an ‘evangelion’ as an official designation for an important public announcement “about something that alters the climate in which people live, changing the politics and the possibilities; it transforms the landscape of social life”.9 Dick France endorses the idea of ‘evangelion’ as a proclamation, and so supports ‘proclamation’ as a valid translation for ‘evangelion’ in Mark.10
Theissen and others also understand that Jesus’ proclamation of the reign (or kingdom) of God as ‘evangelion’ is closely linked to the derivation of the concept of ‘gospel/good news’ in the Old Testament from passages such as Isaiah 52:7; and 61:1-11.11
The New Testament writers had one eye on the prophetic writings while at the same time consciously adopting the specialist term for an Imperial proclamation from the language of the Roman Empire.
It seems that what is happening is that the Old Testament and secular traditions converge, so that the New Testament writers had one eye on the prophetic writings while at the same time consciously adopting the specialist term for an Imperial proclamation from the language of the Roman Empire.12 So Dunn similarly recognises the convergence of the trajectory from Isaiah 52:7 and Isaiah 61:1 with contemporary political overtones in Paul’s use of the term gospel.13
We can now see why Luke and the other Gospel writers directly link these two concepts (evangelion & kingdom), when they say Jesus came proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. They meant that both Jesus’ preaching and ministry were in themselves a proclamation of the present and coming rule of God.
Authority and the Church
If, as we have already attested, the New Testament writers understood a Risen Messiah whose authority was intended to be exercised and expressed through the believing community, is there any significance in the particular term ‘church’ (Greek ‘ekklesia’) used to describe that community? Does it have any connotations in respect of the delegated authority implicit in being the Body of Messiah? Or are there any number of other terms they might just as well have used?
In fact, there were all sorts of terms with the general meaning of gathering or assembly. Normally in New Testament writing, where several terms could apply, we come across them all in various places. NT writers normally use a variety of terms, employing the different nuances in meaning for particular effect. However, in this case, of all the words available, there is only one which carries connotations of devolved authority, which is the one which all the New Testament writers consistently use without fail. Their community is not just a loose association of like-minded people. It has a specific function of exercising delegated authority, and they persist in using the one term which denotes this.
The term ‘ekklesia’ should be understood to mean not simply ‘called out’ (as usually accepted), but rather ‘called out in order to exercise authority’.
The term ‘ekklesia’ should be understood to mean not simply ‘called out’ (as usually accepted), but rather ‘called out in order to exercise authority’. The word originated as a term for the ruling council of Greek city states, and meant those called out from the community to exercise authority over the community. In Second Temple Judaism it was often used as a derived term to denote the ruling elders of a synagogue, but the implications were wider than just the religious sphere, it could apply to the ruling elders of any village or community.
So as well as identifying that “the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ was one of the equivalents for the Hebrew ‘keneseth’ and Aramaic ‘kenishta’ (synagogue)”, FF Bruce confirms that in “Greek cities the ‘ekklesia’ was the citizen body in its legislative capacity”. Bruce means that in Greek cities the ‘ekklesia’ was an elite body making city laws and exercising localised authority.14
In the Roman empire, only the minority who were Roman citizens had full rights, including to own property, to marry without permission, and to go to law. The vast majority of the population were ‘peregrini’, and below them were slaves at the bottom of the heap. In Roman usage, ‘ekklesia’ was the term reserved for a meeting solely of citizens, in other words of a ruling elite who were empowered with rights and authority to which the rest did not have access. Paul’s usage of ‘ekklesia’ in a Roman context therefore implies the exercise of spiritual authority, although combined with a revolutionary concept of social inclusion.
Greek and Roman society had a number of social and voluntary associations. Some of these were purely for social purposes, others had a connection with pagan religious cults. There were a number of terms used for such clubs, such as ‘thiasos’, ‘factio’, ‘curia’, ‘corpus’, and so on. Wayne Meeks comments that “nowhere in the Pauline letters are any of the terms used that are characteristic of Greek and Roman associations”. The only use he can find of ‘ekklesia’ regarding the clubs, is an occasional use relating to business meetings. The term ‘ekklesia’ was only used within the club for a ruling committee, drawn out from amongst the ordinary membership to make decisions and exercise authority. Meeks concludes that “The commonest use of ekklesia was to refer to a town meeting of free male citizens of a city of Greek constitution”.15
James Dunn has made a wide-ranging survey of the different terms used in the NT to describe the fledgling Messianic movement and its varied constituent communities. He concludes that “if there is a single term in the NT writings which denotes the existence and character of the embryonic Christian movement … that term is ekklesia”; normally “its predominant usage was for the regularly summoned citizen body in legislative assembly”.16
In their discussion of why ‘ekklesia’ was the NT term favoured to describe a gathering of believers, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch comment:
“Remember Paul didn’t invent the term ekklesia. It was already part of the vernacular of his time. … Most dictionaries will tell you that ekklesia literally means ‘the gathering of the called out ones’. It comes in two words ek meaning ‘out’, and kaleo meaning ‘to call’. But in its original usage an ekklesia was not just an assembly or a gathering, as many suppose. If that’s all Paul wanted to convey, he could have used agora and panegyris as well as heorte, koinon, thiasos, and synago, all of which refer to an assembly.
“In Paul’s time, an ekklesia was a gathering of the elders of a community. In smaller villages and towns across Judea, local elders would gather regularly to discuss and deliberate over a variety of political and social dilemmas facing the community. Neighbourhood disputes, arguments over estates of deceased persons, communal responses to natural disasters, these were the kinds of things the council of elders would consider. … In other words, an ekklesia was a gathering of community leaders. … Paul takes this term and [uses] it for his fledgling communities.”17
The authority of the Risen Messiah is delegated to and exercised through the New Testament communities of believers, the ‘ekklesia’.
So it seems the New Testament writers could have used any number of words if they only wanted to refer to an assembly or gathering or community. Their insistence in using only the one term is specific, and identifies clearly their understanding of their mission. They were under divine authority. The authority of the Risen Messiah is delegated to and exercised through the New Testament communities of believers, the ‘ekklesia’.
Authority and the Name
Another interesting insight into the delegation of authority to believers is found in references to “in the Name of Jesus”, “in My Name” and so on. In certain such cases the word ‘'name’ could perhaps be paraphrased as ‘authority’. We can see this in books and plays where the slightly dated phrase ‘Open up in the Name of the Law!’ is used. It means the person concerned is not presenting his own credentials, but is standing as an official representative of the Law of the Land, and all that it means.
This was the kind of authority which the Centurion understood in Luke 7:8, since he represented the full authority of the Roman Empire, and in the last analysis even of Caesar himself. As someone who was “under authority”, so long as he acted correctly, understanding his official capacity, and not outside the bounds of his authority, the full weight of Rome was effective through him. Conversely, not to act and use the authority delegated to him would be a dereliction of duty, just as much as exceeding or abusing it.
This all helps us to understand what Jesus means when says “The Father will give you whatever you ask in My Name” (Jn 15:16; see also Jn 14:14; 16:23; 16:26). It does not mean that if we tack the right form of words on to the end of a prayer we automatically get our request. Rather, the paraphrase “whatever you ask in My authority” implies correctly understanding the authority we have been given in any particular situation; through a combination of scriptures, experience, the voice of the Holy Spirit, and so on; and praying accordingly. David Stern comments on John 14:14 that “We are to make our requests in Yeshua’s name, that is, as His followers, on His authority”.18
Next week, we will look together at how this works out practically, how we can act under Jesus’ authority, using both scriptural and modern examples.
Frank Booth has a degree in Economics & History, and an MA in Biblical Interpretation. He lives in the Cotswolds, and has two children and two grand-children.
Notes
1. Graham Stanton, ‘Jesus and Gospel’ (Cambridge University Press, 2004) p31-35
2. Stanton, ‘Jesus and Gospel’ p32
3. Stanton, ‘Jesus and Gospel’ p32
4. Stanton, ‘Jesus and Gospel’ p31-32
5. Gerd Theissen, ‘The New Testament: A Literary History’ (Fortress Press 2012) p201
6. Theissen, ‘NT Literary History’ p56
7. Theissen, ‘NT Literary History’ p55
8. Theissen, ‘NT Literary History’ p55
9. Rowan Williams, ‘Meeting God in Mark’ (SPCK 2014) p6
10. R T France, ‘The Gospel of Mark: NIGTC’ (Eerdmans 2002) p52
11. Theissen, ‘NT Literary History’ p55-6
12. Theissen, ‘NT Literary History’ p269 n14
13. Dunn, ‘Beginning from Jerusalem’ p552 & p914 esp n229
14. FF Bruce, ‘The Spreading Flame’ (Paternoster Press 1958) p71
15. Wayne Meeks, ‘The First Urban Christians’ (Yale University Press 1983) p79
16. Dunn’ ‘Beginning From Jerusalem’ p599
17. Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch, ‘ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church’ (Baker Academic, 2009) p31
18. David Stern, ‘Jewish New Testament Commentary’ (Jewish NT Publications 1992) p199