Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar - review, pt. 2
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.