Reviews and Notices

In the form of God meant not exploiting

tbis status, and this non-exploitation
was thus not contrary to his essential
nature as God but rather tbe expression
of what it means to be God. Cbrist thus
reveals bis divinity precisely by kenosis
and cruciformity. 'Divine being and act
are inseparable' (38). Cbrist incarnates
wbat it truly means to be God in contrast
with contemporary misunderstandings
of God in terms of arbitrary power and
autbority. Here the infiuences of S. E.
Fowl, C. E D. Moule and N. T. Wrigbt
(among otbers) are acknowledged.
This leads on to an exposition of justification in Paul as being by co-crucifixion
witb Cbrist and signifying tbe establisbment of rigbt covenantal relations.
Judicial pardon is part, but only part,
of tbis action. Linked with this is tbe
interpretation of 'tbe faitb of Christ' in
a subjective manner (tbe faitblfulnessl
displayed by Cbrist).
A furtber stage in the argument is to
demonstrate tbat tbe process and result
of holiness in Paul is most profoundly
expressed as being like God in his cruciform self-giving and bence boliness is
in fact theosis (as defined above).
Finally, Gorman argues against Paul's
view of God being of a violent God, and
claims that consequently theosis leads
to non-violence. God's final judgment
is real but not violent. For believers
Pbinebas with bis justification by bis
violent zeal is no longer a model to be
followed.
Gorman's treatment learns from and
debates witb English-speaking frontline Pauline scholarship on every page;
it is presented eirenically and attractively without the polemic that is sometimes displayed by otber scholars, and
offers a picture of Pauline tbeology that
makes excellent, but not uncritical, use
of new insights. There are details that
need careful scrutiny, and in particular
questions arise about the relationship

EQ 271

of this view of God to that apparently

found elsewhere in the Cbristian canon, notably in tbe Old Testament and
in Revelation. Tbere are also important
unanswered questions about how we
as cruciform Christians should deal
with violent criminals and terrorists
and rogue states in the contemporary
world.
/. Howard Marshall
University ofAberdeen

EQ 82.3 (2010), 271-274

Chirist and Caesar: The Gospei and tiie
Roman Empire in the Writings of Paui
and Lui<e
Seyoon Kim
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. vii -i228 pp. pb. 16.99, ISBN 978-0-80286008-8
Seyoon Kim forcefully cballenges antiimperial interpretations offiveof Paul's
letters (1-2 Tbessalonians, Pbilippians,
Romans and lCorinthians) and LukeActs. This book Is a good read not least
because the reader is always anticipating wbicb scbolar Kim will lock boms
witb next. He is, as tbose of us who
know bis previous works are aware,
not timid to offer stinging criticisms of
views with which he disagrees. In this
book Kim takes on a wide range of very
well-known scholars and his vigorous
attack is at times entertaining and almost always instructive. What follows
is not a description of Kim's entire book
but rather a discussion of those sections
that I believe are tbe most crucial for
Kim's argument.
Part one addresses anti-imperial interpretafions of Paul. Among otber reasons
for an anti-imperial interpretation of i2 Thessalonians, scholars often point to
Paul's use of key terms that were prominent in the imperial cult and ideology
(such as kyrios, parousia, epiphaneia.

272 EQ

Reviews and Notices

stria, eirn). These terms are used

precisely because Paul is engaging in an
anti-imperial polemic (A. Smith) and,
by re-defining tbese concepts in terms
of" Cbrist and his kingdom, Paul is calling the church to an alternative empire,
an alternate 'Lord' (Christ), and an alternative eschatology which is 'a Utopian alternative to the prevailing eschatological ideology of Rome'(H.Koester).
Kim attempts to show that these terms
need not be over-interpreted by forcing
on tbem imperial connotations. He also
sbows that Paul's eschatology in these
two letters is not mainly targeting Roman eschatology as such but ratber is
tboroughly apocalyptic: Paul calls the
Thessalonians to 'wait' for the parousia
of Christ (1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13-18) while
not caving in 'to the Zeitgeist of the Roman Empire and the contemporary
Hellenism' (10).
In chapter two Kim has his sights set
primarily on N.T. Wright. Wright interprets Phil. 2:6-11 in light of the 'clear'
anfi-imperial ideology and eschatology
in 3:20-21 (politeuma, 'citizenship' ancl
soter, 'saviour'). Kim points to Wright's
appeal to 'coded' language tbat, on
the surface, is couched in his polemic
against Judaism (3:2-11, 18-19) but is
really abouthis criticisms of the Roman
Empire. This appeal to 'code' is simply too subtle and indirect to have any
meaningful interpretive payoff (Kim
criticizes A. Smith for the same error).
Kim's interpretation of these Philippian
passages is similar to his interpretation
of the 'peace and security' (parousia/
apantsis) in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11, namely,
that although Paul's language in Phil.
2:6-11 and 3:20-21 evokes comparisons
between Cbrist and Caesar, Paul is focused on greater eschatological and
apocalyptic realities than simply tbe
Roman empire; he is not concerned
with deliverance from Roman ideology
as such but ratber 'from God's wratb...
(1 Thes. 5:9-10) and transformation of

our "body" to participation in divine

glory (Phil. 3:20-21)' (15). Thus, Roman
imperial eschatology, salvation and emperor ideology, are not mere 'parodies'
of Christ and his kingdom (as Wright
would have it): Christ and his kingdom
are 'categorically different' (15). Kim has
convinced me here that Wright's view of
Paul's theology at this point is perhaps
not radical or cosmic enough; it may be
even a bit too 'tbis worldly'.
Kim next turns to the letter to the Romans. Again, he sees that Paul may be
challenging imperial ideology in places
(perhaps Wright is correct to point to
the inclusio in Rom. 1:3-5 and 15:12),
but tbis would be natural since tbe Roman empire is the concrete Sitz im Leben of the Roman church as well as Paul
himself. Nevertheless, an anti-imperial
polemic is absent in Romans. Paul is
more focused on human sinfulness and
Jewish nationalistic pride, 'not Roman
imperialistic hubris' (17). Paul's gospel
is not an imperial gospel, rather Paul's
message of Christ promises redemption
from sin, death and God's judgment;
it is thus a transcendental gospel at its
core.
The most important and powerful point
made in regard to Romans, with implications for Paul in general, is the passage that Kim believes amounts to tbe
deatb nail on an anti-imperial political
interpretation of Paul; Rom. 13;l-7. It is
bere tbat Paul tells Roman Christians to
be subjected to tbe autborities and to
bonour them as 'ministers of God'. I believe tbat Kim bas made bis case and his
conclusion is justified: 'Any anti-imperial political interpretation of the epistle
is destined to be shipwrecked at Rom.
13:1-7' (21). Of course, one will have
to judge for oneself if Kim's exegesis is
convincing (see his extended argument
on pages 36-43).
In terms of 1 Corinthians, Kim takes
on R. A. Horsley and N. Elliott's political interpretations which are grounded

Reviews and Notices

EQ 273

in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and 15:24-28. 'Tbe rulers

of this age' (2:6-8) and 'every authority
and power' (15:24) are to be identified
witb the empire itself Elliott understands the cross in 1 Corinthians (e.g.,
2:8) as God's justice for the oppressed,
and this interpretation is simply too political for Kim. In response, Kim again
emphasises Paul's cosmic and apocalyptic proclivities: the cross in 2:8 must
be understood in light of other passages
in which the cross was 'for our sins'
(15:3) and the human plight is defined
not in political terms but in terms of sin
and death. The 'rulers of this age' need
not be interpreted as Roman rulers but
ratber, in light of 1 Gor. 15:26, 54-57,
'Paul himself signals that those tertns
refer to evil forces broader tban human
rulers and enemies' (24). In fact, Satan
is mentioned explicitly in 5:5; 7:5 (cf.
10:20-21) as well as the 'god of this age'
in 2 Gor. 4:4 and it is these cosmic forces
that 'rule the world' for Paul.

In part two, Kim tackles the anti-Imperial readings of the Lukan writings. Kim
admits that Luke did pit Jesus against
Caesar and the empire In many different
ways (cf Lk. 2:1-14; Acts 28:31). There
is thus a legitimate political reading of
Luke's presentation of Jesus and the salvation he brought. Nevertheless, Luke
insists that proclaiming Jesus the 'Lord'
does /oramount to treason against Caesar (Acts 25:8; cf 17:1-9). How do we account for this apparent contradiction?
The answer is that the redemption lesus
brougbt was not aimed at altering political, social or economic structures of
the empire but ratber aimed at a much
more formidable foe: Satan's rule and
tbe bondage to sin. This Is precisely why
Jesus (in Luke) and the apostles (in Acts)
extend God's rule through healings, exorcisms and the proclamation of forgiveness. In these ways Luke and Paul
are remarkably similar in their stance
vis--vis the Roman Empire.

In chapter four Kim lays out a number

of factors tbat he believes make an anti-imperial interpretation of Paul very
unlikely. A number of tbese factors
bave already been bigbligbted. I will
mention only tbree. (1) Although Paul's
imprisonments happened because he
was suspected of subversion to the empire (cf Acts 16:20; 17;6), nevertheless
he was released from them rather than
being executed for outrigbt treason:
'there was no perceived anti-imperial
threat' (34). (2) Paul was not interested
in subverting tbe empire or with political change. Rather, he expected the
imminent end of this age, with the parousia of Jesus, 'for this world is passing
away' (1 Gor. 7:31). (3) In keeping with
the above, Paul's etbic of perseverance,
nonretaliation and love for enemy and
peace does not comport well witb a direct anti-Roman agenda. Paul is interested in transcendental salvation and
imminent eschatology, not imperial
subversion.

In my view Kim's work should at least

make us pause a bit and look more closely at the assumptions and arguments
that are employed in some anti-imperial interpretations of Paul and Luke.
Kim has convinced me at the moment
that although Paul and Luke surely saw
the Roman empire and its structures as
evil and that Ghrist's 'Lordship' by definition clashed with the 'lordship' of the
emperor, and indeed any earthly 'lord',
these two authors believed that the real
enemies of Ghrist and his people were
the cosmic powers of Satan and sin, and
the present empire was just one of the
manifestations of this greater enemy's
oppression. Thus, Paul's and Luke's gospel was not fashioned to cotnbat tbe
empire as such; the 'good news' was not
that one can be free from the bondage
to Rome. Rather, the good news was
that one, through faith in lesus, can be
freed from the rule of Satan and sin, the
powers of tbis present evil age. These
authors were far more 'other-worldly'

274 EQ

Reviews and Notices

a cotnbination of sociological analysis

and extensive empirical research. The
big picture that emerges is of diverse
evangelical communities in transition.
Far frotn the popular caricature that
in confiicts with religious ditnensiotis
it is the tnost religious people who are
strongly resistant to compromise, Ganiel shows, using solid evidence, that religious motivations can actually be powerful factors behind identity change.
For this reason, her concern, argued in
chapter 2, is that religion should actively 'be incorporated into confiict managetnent and transfortnation strategies'
rather than excluded from the public
sphere - as British government policy
John Dennis has tended to do.
International Christian College, Glasgow
Chapter 1 succinctly puts forward the
case that seeking to tttiderstand how
religion matters to participants in a
EQ 82.3 (2010), 274-276
context of conflict is a complex goal
Evangelicalism and Conflict in
requiring a muitiditnensional, multiNorthern Ireland
disciplinary approach that embraces
Gladys Ganiel
insights from antbropology, history, poBasingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. litical science and sociology. To capture
207 pp. bb. 40, ISBN 978-0-230-60539- evangelicalism 'oti the ground' the author embarked on fieldwork itivolvitig
8
in-depth interviews witb 57 individuals
Publisbed witbiti a series oti the Con- in four congregations and seven organitemporary Anthropology of Religion, sations over a tbree year period.
this book is refreshing in a nutnber of In cbapter 3 tbe autbor turns her attenways. The author, a sociolologist of re- tion to the changing fortunes of evanligion atid self-described evangelical, gelicalism in Northern Ireland. Buildis Lecturer in Reconciliation Studies at ing on others who have highlighted
tbe Belfast campus of the Irish Scbool a spectrutn of evangelical belief and
of Ecumenics, Tritiity College Dublin. practice (including lordan 2001 and my
Familiar both academically and person- Evangelicalism and National Identity
ally with complexities of'tbe Nortb' and in Ulster 1921-1998, OUP, 2003), Ganiel
its evangelical sub-culture, sbe offers a analyses how what sbe calls 'traditional'
nuanced and constructive analysis of and 'mediating' evangelicals have rethe role of evangelicalism in confiict spotided differently to evangelicalism's
resolution within the contested space loss of social and political power sitice
that is Northerti Ireland. Along the way, 1972. There are parallels to my 'Closed'
tnuch light is shed on the chatigitig and and 'OpetV framework here, but Ganiel's
variegated nature of northern evatigeli- work is new because it not only updates
calistn itself.
tbe story since the Belfast Agreement
Ganiel's approach is creative in that it but also looks at cbanging evangelical
'gets behind' easy stereotypes through cotnmunities from a different angle.

than is normally allowed.

But, tbis empbasis opens Kim's book to
the charge of inadvertetitly encouraging a kind of separationist Christianity
that is not engaged in 'this age/world' in
tneaningful ways. And this is precisely
how another reviewer has read the book
(Yung Suk Kim in CBQ 71 (20091). However, I do not tbink this is a fair assessment of Kim's work. In my view, Kim's
book, in places, amounts to a fairly devastating critique of anti-imperial interpretations and is on the whole a gutsy
challenge of what seems to be a fairly
domitiant, tbough by no means universal, reading of Paul and Luke.

Copyright of Evangelical Quarterly is the property of Paternoster Periodicals and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.