Acts 17:7

Whom Jason hath received: and these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

The decrees of Caesar ... In all probability, Claudius was the emperor referred to.[15] Since that ruler was an avowed enemy of the Jews (Acts 18:2), these Jews were guilty of the same mistake as those who crucified Christ, saying, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15).

This verse is important as showing that Paul believed in the present kingdom of Christ over which Jesus was then and still is ruling. Note that the charge was not that "in the Second Advent, Jesus would become a king"; but that "there is another king, one Jesus." Those who assert that Paul was here teaching the immediate return of Christ should read this passage again.

Another king ... This was a skillfully planned charge. At that time, treason was interpreted in a wide sense and was severely punished."[16] Of course the Jews perverted Paul's meaning, ignoring completely the spiritual nature of the kingdom Paul preached as being then in existence and ruled over by Jesus. This situation reveals two key facts which explain Paul's subsequent shift of emphasis from "King Jesus" to "Lord Jesus" in his preaching to the Gentiles. These were: (1) emphasis of the kingship of Jesus could be easily perverted by the Jews into a charge of treason, and (2) at that particular point in history, the Gentile representatives of Caesar were unusually sensitive to such charges. The allegation that the evident shift of Paul's public teaching away from the "kingship" emphasis was due to his misunderstanding the Second Advent was due to occur quickly, and that he changed his teaching when it failed to come (as evidenced by 2Thessalonians) is absolutely in error. Paul did not change his teaching at all on the kingship of Jesus, except in situations like those prevailing in Thessalonica and other Gentile cities with Jewish elements. For example, he wrote Timothy, "He shall show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6:15).

We are gratified that Harrison also perceived the above truth, and gave us this comment:

This incident illustrates why the epistles of Paul as well as Acts have relatively little to say about the kingdom of God ... It was because these ideas (of the kingdom), familiar and precious (to believing Jews), were subject to misunderstanding by Romans.[17]

[15] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 144.

[16] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 189.

[17] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 446.