Our culture understands the pressures of living in a politically charged environment. But probably not to the same degree the first-century audience would have. It is hard to read Romans without considering its political challenges. 

Consider Romans 1:1-4: “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (NASB). 

Paul boldly states Jesus is the Son of God. While Caesars could make some type of lineage claim (e.g., Augustus to Julius Caesar), Jesus could claim authentically to be of the line of David and the very Son of God. He does not cast this haphazardly into the wind with no substance to defend it. Instead, he ties it to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. That was the defining moment at which Jesus proved precisely who He was.

That’s not the only controversy in the text. Paul then identifies Jesus as, “Jesus Christ our Lord” at the end of v. 4. “Lord” in the ancient Roman world was Caesar. All the people in the empire knew he was in charge. Paul revealed his loyalties and declared his allegiance to King Jesus. And each time Paul uses the term, it carries this same thought. Domitian especially presented an issue with titles like this when he demanded to be addressed as “master and god” (Bell Jr., Exploring the New Testament World, 128). This had enormous implications for Christians who would bow their knee to no one but Christ. This controversy goes beyond the epistle to the Romans but to every Pauline epistle (arguably the entire NT). When he states Jesus is the Lord, it is powerfully proclaiming that Jesus alone is the Lord and thus Caesar is not.