Imperial Cult

Background

The imperial cult was the practice of honoring the Roman emperor as a god or near-divine being, building temples to him, and offering him sacrifices. Its roots lay in the "ruler cult" of the Hellenistic kingdoms that followed Alexander the Great, in which rulers were venerated as gods. Roman society was polytheistic, worshiping many gods side by side. Sacrificing to the emperor was therefore regarded less as a personal confession of faith than as a public ritual expressing loyalty to the empire.

Development

• 42 BC: The Roman Senate proclaimed the assassinated Julius Caesar a god.
• 29 BC: Augustus permitted temples to "the goddess Roma and Augustus" to be built in Pergamum and other cities of Asia Minor. Rome itself was cautious about worshiping a living emperor as a god, but the cult spread early in the eastern provinces. Augustus was deified after his death in AD 14.
• In Judea, Herod the Great built temples to Augustus in Caesarea and elsewhere. The Jews are reported to have been permitted to offer sacrifices on the emperor's behalf in the Jerusalem temple rather than sacrificing to the emperor directly.
• c. AD 40: The emperor Caligula attempted to have a statue of himself erected in the Jerusalem temple. The plan was never carried out because he was assassinated the following year.
• Late first century: Sources record that the emperor Domitian wished to be addressed as "Lord and God."
• c. 112: Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote to the emperor Trajan. He reported that he had required accused Christians to offer incense and wine before the emperor's image and to curse Christ, and that he had released those who complied.
• Mid-second century: Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is said to have been martyred after refusing the demand to declare "Caesar is Lord."
• 250: The emperor Decius ordered all inhabitants of the empire to sacrifice to the gods and obtain a certificate attesting that they had done so. The order led to large-scale persecution. In 303 the persecution under Diocletian began.
• After 313: Christianity was granted legal recognition by the Edict of Milan. When the emperor Theodosius prohibited pagan sacrifice in the late fourth century, the imperial cult also disappeared.

Consequences and Influence

Because of the confession that "Jesus is the Lord" (1 Corinthians 12:3), the early church could not call the emperor "lord." Roman society regarded this stance as "atheism"—a refusal to serve the gods—and as disloyalty to the state. Christians followed the teaching to pray for the emperor and to submit to the governing authorities (1 Peter 2:13–17; Mark 12:13–17). Yet they refused to worship him, distinguishing between obedience and worship.

Several of the cities that were home to the seven churches of Asia Minor had imperial temples. For this reason, many interpreters read the beast of Revelation 13:1–10 in connection with the imperial cult.

The Korean church has often understood the Shinto shrine worship imposed during the Japanese colonial period by analogy with Roman emperor worship. The Japanese government maintained that shrine worship was not a religious act but a "national rite." By contrast, Ju Gi-cheol and others who refused to participate regarded it as idolatry.

Assessment

Scholars hold differing views: some see the imperial cult primarily as a ritual of political loyalty, while others argue that it carried genuine religious meaning for its participants. The scale of persecution under Domitian and the date of the composition of Revelation (whether in the reign of Nero or of Domitian) also remain debated.

Interpretations of the beast in Revelation likewise diverge. Some see it as referring to first-century Rome; others take it as a symbol of the idolization of state power that recurs in every age; still others identify it with the Antichrist who is yet to appear.

In Korea, the question of how to repent of and deal with the resolution approving shrine worship became one of the causes of the schisms in Korean Presbyterianism. This history is still cited as a case that raises the question of where the boundary lies between state power and faith.