The Upper Register Blog

“William who?” you ask. I had never heard of William of St-Thierry (c. 1080–1148) either until I was doing some searches on iustitia Dei in the Library of Latin Texts – Series A database (by Brepols) for my dissertation. (Unfortunately, you need a subscription to access the database.) Wikipedia has some helpful information here. Apparently he was a Benedictine monk and a close friend of the more famous Bernard of Clairvaux. According to Wikipedia, William wrote his Expositio super Epistolam ad Romanos (Exposition over the Letter to the Romans) in 1137.

On Rom 1:17, he writes:  “This righteousness which justifies believers, is faith … It is therefore called righteousness, because it makes righteous those who have it. Moreover it is ‘of God,’ precisely because faith is by grace.” And on Rom 3:21:  “What is this righteousness? He says, ‘the righteousness of God,’ when faith accomplishes what the law demands:  the righteousness of God, not of men, nor of works, nor of one’s own will.” 

And a little later in the same context, he writes: 

A man comes along, who alone was born righteous (Venit homo, qui solus iustus natus est). Yet he who took no delight in sin, did not refuse the punishment of sin. And this righteousness he gave to humanity sold [in sin] and unable by the substance of his nature to redeem himself out from it, in order that on account of his [Christ’s] punishment he might free [humanity] from the certificate of his debt. And this is the righteousness of God, that, through faith clinging to him who died for us, we might have from him that of which we were not capable by ourselves (Et haec iustitia Dei, ut per fidem inhaerentes ei qui pro nobis mortuus est, ex ipso habeamus quod non possumus ex nobis). For that which is conferred on us freely is grace.

[Translations mine.] 

This is a remarkable set of quotes, for here William of St-Thierry appears to adumbrate the Reformation interpretation that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ reckoned to or conferred on [but see below] the believer by faith. He speaks of Christ being “alone born righteous” and yet taking the punishment for sin that sinners deserved. He then goes on to say that the righteousness of God is that, as we cling in faith to Christ, we freely receive from Christ that righteousness which we were not capable of producing from our own resources. The righteousness of God is thus a soteriological benefit that the sinner receives by faith. It is called “of God,” according to William, because it is a free gift of God’s grace, not produced by human volition or human works.  

Now it is true that William thinks that in justification God “makes” sinners righteous, rather then imputing the righteousness of Christ to them. But prior to the Reformation, everyone made that mistake. The clear-cut distinction between justification and sanctification was the Reformation’s unique contribution (see Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei for proof of that thesis). I realize that there is a danger of distorting the gospel when justification is interpreted as a transformative act that makes sinners righteous. But because William places the accent on Christ and his righteousness and death, and on clinging to Christ by faith, I think he avoids that danger. For a medieval theologian, the above is a pretty good approximation of Pauline doctrine, and I dare say it is a close enough approximation that William probably had saving faith in Christ. It is certainly closer to the saving truth of the gospel than the social theory of justification taught by the NPP (i.e., that in justification God declares one to be a member of the covenant community).

In my research for my dissertation, I rejoiced to discover Origen’s interpretation of ”the righteousness of God” in Paul. Although Origen had some pretty speculative ideas in his theology, he strikes me as a rather sober exegete. He interprets Romans 3:21-22 and 10:3 in light of 1 Cor 1:30 and concludes that “the righteousness of God” is nothing less than Christ himself.

Here he is commenting on Rom 3:21:

We can now see what “righteousness” it is that has been manifested apart from natural law. It is the same which the apostle Paul says concerning Christ, that “he has been made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”  Therefore, this righteousness of God, which is Christ, has been manifested apart from the natural law, but not apart from the law of Moses or the prophets. Natural law teaches us about equity among men or to know that there is a God. But that Christ is the Son of god, who is able to come to know this by nature? Therefore, apart from that law, the righteousness of God, which is Christ, has been manifested, testified to by the law of Moses and the prophets [Migne, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 14, column 944].

Not only is “the righteousness of God” Christ himself, but it is given to all who believe, causing them to be cleansed of their sins, justified, and made fit for glory:

There is, he says, no distinction between Jews and Greeks, since all stand equally made under sin, as he had previously made clear, and now the righteousness of God, supported by the testimonies of the law and prophets, through faith in Jesus Christ is equally given to all … For that reason, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ coming to all who believe, whether they are Jews or Greeks, justifies those who have been purified from their prior crimes and makes them fit for the glory of God; and it makes them such, not by their merits, nor for their works, but freely offers glory to those who believe [column 945].

Contra the New Perspective on Paul, Origen interprets the Pauline lexeme “the righteousness of God” as having reference not to God’s faithfulness to the covenant but to Christ himself and the status of being cleansed from sin, justified, and qualified for eschatological glory on the basis of Christ’s atonement. “The righteousness of God” is thus a soteriological status that sinful humans receive by believing in Christ. And it makes believers fit for glory, “not by their merits, nor for their works, but freely (gratis) offers glory to those who believe.”

His comments on Rom 10:3-6 are also important. He argues that Paul makes mention of “two righteousnesses” (duarum justitiarum), namely, “the righteousness which is by the law” (justitia quae ex lege) and “the righteousness which is by faith” (justitia quae ex fide). Origen connects these two kinds of righteousness with Paul’s statement in the immediately preceding context about Israel’s unbelief (“being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness,” Rom 10:3): 

“For Christ is the end of the law,” that is, the perfection of the law, and Christ is righteousness, but to those who believe.  Those who do not truly believe, because they do not have Christ, do not have the perfection of the law; and for this reason neither are they able to arrive at righteousness. “For Moses writes that the righteousness which is by the law, which if a man does he shall live by it. But the righteousness which is by faith speaks thus.”  Already and in the preceding, the apostle made mention of two righteousnesses, when he says, for being ignorant of the righteousness of God, Israel sought to establish their own righteousness:  and here now he speaks again of two righteousnesses, one which is by the law, and the other which is by faith. But it seems to me that that righteousness which he had said above was ignored by Israel, the righteousness of God, is the same as the righteousness which is by faith. And that righteousness indeed of which he had said, “seeking to establish their own righteousness,” is the same as the righteousness which Moses here introduces with words, that “righteousness which is by the law, which if a man does he shall live by it” [column 1160].

I repeat: Origen says, “It seems to me that that righteousness which he had said above was ignored by Israel, the righteousness of God, is the same as the righteousness which is by faith,” while “their own righteousness” is the same as the righteousness which is by the law. 

I think this is significant because many scholars from Cremer to Käsemann to the New Perspective (Dunn and Wright) reject the identification of “the righteousness of God” with “the righteousness of faith.” Although they acknowledge the close connection between the two, these scholars want to emphasize the theocentric meaning of “the righteousness of God” (interpreted as God’s saving righteousness in fulfillment of his covenant promises) while allowing only the latter term, “the righteousness of faith,” to refer to the soteriological status of righteousness enjoyed by the believer. 

My brother-in-law, Scott Yoshikawa (Ph.D. in NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School under D. A. Carson), teaches Greek at Biola University in La Mirada, CA. Some of his students created this clever music video called All Things Are Better in Koine. Scott is the professor who is briefly featured in the video several times. Enjoy.

In the first two chapters of Part 1, Kim examines the arguments of the “Paul and Empire” coalition with regard to four of Paul’s epistles – 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. In these epistles Paul employs a number of key theological terms that were also used by the imperial cult, such as:

kyrios (lord), parousia (official visit), epiphaneia (manifestation), apantesis (meeting of citizens with visiting dignitary), eirene kai asphaleia (pax et securitas), soter (savior), soteria (deliverance), ekklesia (the assembly of citizens of a polis), politeuma (commonwealth), dikaiosyne (justice), euangelion (good news), eleutheria (freedom), pistis (loyalty), elpis (hope), and katallage (reconciliation). 

While the impressive terminological parallels at first seem to invite a counter-imperial reading, Kim argues that the “Paul and Empire” coalition is guilty of methodological errors (chapter 3).

Their primary error is “parallelomania,” a phrase coined by the Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel in 1962 in protest against those who assumed that any parallels in language between the NT and its pagan and Jewish environment proved that the NT authors were dependent on the particular author whose language is paralleled in the NT. The imperial parallels listed above turn out to be superficial, because even if they were originally derived from a Roman imperial context, Paul does not use these terms with any counter-imperial intent or with the aim of subverting the Roman Empire.

Kim argues that while the words may have had political meanings in imperial contexts, it is not warranted to assume that Paul is using those words with the same political meanings or with the intent of deliberately describing his gospel in counter-imperial terms. This may of course occur, but it has to be demonstrated by examining the context of Paul’s usage of these terms.

The closest that Paul comes to critiquing Rome is 1 Thess 5:3 where Paul says, “While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them” (ESV). But, Kim argues, while Paul may have the Roman propaganda of pax Romana in his sights here, he is merely warning Christians not to be lulled into complacency and is not attacking Roman imperialism per se.

But for the vast majority of the above terms, e.g., kyrios, euangelion, dikaiosyne, katallage, etc., analysis of how Paul uses these terms within the context of his writings and mission demonstrates that he used them to convey his own message about the gospel of Christ, not to critique the Roman Empire or the imperial cult. Such a reading must be imposed on the texts in question by assuming deductively that since the Roman order and the imperial cult were so pervasive, that Paul had to have had this political reality in view when using these terms and therefore could only have been using the terms subversively.

Kim writes:

Really they impose anti-imperial meanings onto these terms and string those passages up, sometimes extrapolating the meaning of one passage to another, in order to claim that Paul preached the gospel in deliberate antithesis to the imperial ideology and cult. This looks like a new application of the old-fashioned proof-text method that dogmatists employed to construct doctrines, and dispensationalists used to construct elaborate eschatological scenarios (p. 32).

Chapter 4 is titled, “Factors That Make an Anti-Imperial Interpretation Difficult.” Kim draws attention to 9 factors. I will not rehearse them all there, but here are a few that stand out.

Romans 13:1-7

The most obvious problem for the counter-imperial interpretation is Paul’s positive assessment of the governing authorities in Romans 13:1-7. As many other scholars have noted (e.g., Denny Burk in his recent JETS article, which I summarized here), this is a huge hurdle that the “Paul and Empire” coalition have struggled mightily to overcome with what appears to many to be tortuous exegesis. Kim calls Rom 13:1-7 “the Achilles’ heel for all anti-imperial readings of Paul” (p. 36).

The scarcity of references to the imperial cult

When Paul discusses the problem of pagan idolatry in 1 Cor 8-10 and Rom 1:18-32, he does not single out emperor worship itself. 2 Thess 2:3-12 is one place where Paul does have in mind the emperor cult when he speaks of one who “exalts himself … so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (v 4 ESV). Yet Paul appeals to the future appearance of the “man of lawlessness” as an event that has not yet occurred in order to convince the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord has not yet arrived. This “would indirectly confirm that at present he is not concerned about the imperial cult as much as his political interpreters claim he is” (p. 35).

Paul’s expectation of acquittal and release

In Phil 1:19-26, Paul expresses his confidence that when he gets his day in court before Caesar, he will be acquitted and released. Kim argues that Paul himself believed that his message was politically innocuous and, if given the chance, that he would be able to convince Caesar of this as well. “A man with such a hope could hardly have preached the gospel in an anti-imperial sense” (p. 50).

Paul’s socio-political conservatism

Paul’s expectation of the imminent parousia of Christ caused him to be content with the socio-political status quo. When writing to the Corinthian Christians he said, “each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (1 Cor 7:20 ESV). Accordingly, “Paul never exhorts the believers to subvert the political system of the Roman Empire or change the social structure of their city or province” (p. 51). Instead, he exhorts them to be subject to the governing authorities and to live quietly* and mind their own affairs (Rom 13:1; 1 Thess 4:11). (*The verb is ἡσυχάζω: “Of conduct that does not disturb the peace. Christian leaders endeavored to keep their members free of anything that might be construed as disturbance of public order” [BDAG].)

Paul’s transcendent conception of salvation

This is my favorite of Kim’s factors that make a counter-imperial reading difficult. Paul believed that the fundamental problems confronting humanity did not have to do with political oppression, imperialism, and the like, but with humanity’s alienation from God and its enslavement to the powers of sin and death. In keeping with his view of the basic problem, he proclaimed a gospel of deliverance from sin and death through the atoning death of Christ. All who put their faith in the crucified and exalted Lord Jesus receive the forgiveness of their sins, are restored to a right relationship with God, and have the hope of obtaining a glorified body free from death. Paul also taught that the physical creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia (Rom 8:21).

When Paul is expecting such individual and cosmic salvation from God, and very shortly at that, how interested would he be in changing the present “scheme of the world” that “is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31), in order to make life in it a little fuller during the short interim period (v. 29) before such total salvation? (p. 60).

In my next post I’ll deal with Kim’s analysis of the writings of Luke.

Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke (Eerdmans, 2008). xvi + 288 pp. Paperback $24.00.

As many of you know, there is a new trend in New Testament scholarship that attempts to read the message of Paul as a critique of the Roman Empire. Paul’s gospel is interpreted as the antithesis of the Roman imperial cult and its propaganda. In the past I have followed John M. G. Barclay’s label and referred to this trend as the “Paul and Empire” coalition. Others speak of “counter-imperial” readings of Paul.

Some of the names associated with this coalition are Richard Horsley, N. T. Wright, Neil Elliott, Robert Jewett, John Dominic Crossan and others. Richard Horsley is the first of this group because he edited three books on the subject in the last 11 or so years:  Paul and Empire (1997), Paul and Politics (2000), and Paul the Roman Imperial Order (2004). N. T. Wright seems to have jumped on the bandwagon in recent years, as evidenced by his book Paul in Fresh Perspective (2005) in which he continues his advocacy of “the New Perspective on Paul” but with the added factor of the “Paul and Empire” approach, resulting in what he now terms the “Fresh Perspective on Paul.”

The “Paul and Empire” coalition may be a recent phenomenon in NT scholarship, but like all intellectual trends, it has its antecedents. For example, early in the 20th century, Adolf Deissmann wrote:  “It must not be supposed that St. Paul and his fellow believers went through the world blindfolded, unaffected by what was then moving the minds of men in great cities,” namely, the imperial cult (quoted by Kim, p. xv).

Another important antecedent is the postcolonial school of hermeneutics in the second half of the 20th century which self-consciously interprets texts (including the Bible) from the point of view of the various “subaltern” people groups that have historically been oppressed and exploited by the great European powers such as Britain, France, and Spain. Postcolonial theory is responsible for the rise of the vague concept of “imperialism” as something that allegedly continues today in various subtle ways – e.g., in the economic and cultural influence of the U.S., as well as its foreign policy – even after the literal colonial empires of the 19th and early 20th centuries have come to an end.

In the preface, Seyoon Kim says that his latest book, Christ and Caesar, grew out of his forthcoming commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (an overhaul of F. F. Bruce’s Word Biblical Commentary). Kim says that he was initially impressed by the parallels between Paul’s theological terms and those of the Roman imperial cult, and so he began his study with the expectation that the counter-imperial approach would help uncover the neglected political dimension of Paul’s gospel. After looking into the matter more carefully, however, he concluded that the terminological parallels are more superficial than real, and that the concerns of Paul in the use of these terms lies not so much in countering the Roman empire as in proclaiming a transcendent salvation in Christ.

After a brief introduction, the book is divided into two main sections:  (1) The Epistles of Paul (pp. 1-71), and (2) The Writings of Luke (pp. 73-190). The book concludes with a Summary and Conclusion (pp. 191-99), an Epilogue titled, “Some Implications for Today” (pp. 200-3), and finally a select bibliography and two indices.