What do you think?
Rate this book
The Apostle and the Empire: Paul’s Implicit and Explicit Criticism of Rome
Was Paul silent on the injustices of the Roman Empire? Or have his letters just been misread?
The inclusion of anti-imperial rhetoric in Paul’s writings has come under scrutiny in recent years. Pressing questions about just how much Paul critiques Rome in his letters and how publicly critical he could have afforded to be have led to high-profile debates—most notably between N. T. Wright and John M. G. Barclay.
Having entered the conversation in 2015 with his book Hidden Criticism? , Christoph Heilig contributes further insight and new research in The Apostle and the Empire , reevaluating the case for Paul hiding his criticism of Rome in the subtext of his letters. Heilig argues that scholars have previously overlooked passages that openly denounce the empire—for instance, the “triumphal procession” in 2 Corinthians, which Heilig discusses in detail by drawing on a variety of archaeological data.
Furthermore, Heilig takes on larger issues of theory and methodology in biblical studies, raising significant questions about how interpreters can move beyond outdated methods of reading the New Testament toward more robust understandings of the ways ancient texts convey meaning. His groundbreaking work is a must-read for Pauline scholars and for anyone interested in how one of Christianity’s most important teachers communicated his unease with the global superpower of his day.
The inclusion of anti-imperial rhetoric in Paul’s writings has come under scrutiny in recent years. Pressing questions about just how much Paul critiques Rome in his letters and how publicly critical he could have afforded to be have led to high-profile debates—most notably between N. T. Wright and John M. G. Barclay.
Having entered the conversation in 2015 with his book Hidden Criticism? , Christoph Heilig contributes further insight and new research in The Apostle and the Empire , reevaluating the case for Paul hiding his criticism of Rome in the subtext of his letters. Heilig argues that scholars have previously overlooked passages that openly denounce the empire—for instance, the “triumphal procession” in 2 Corinthians, which Heilig discusses in detail by drawing on a variety of archaeological data.
Furthermore, Heilig takes on larger issues of theory and methodology in biblical studies, raising significant questions about how interpreters can move beyond outdated methods of reading the New Testament toward more robust understandings of the ways ancient texts convey meaning. His groundbreaking work is a must-read for Pauline scholars and for anyone interested in how one of Christianity’s most important teachers communicated his unease with the global superpower of his day.
- GenresTheologyBiblical Studies
192 pages, Hardcover
Published November 22, 2022
42 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 20, 2025
Unnecessarily rude towards another scholar and their work in the related field. Also, not a very riveting read.
May 1, 2023
Summary: Focusing on 2 Corinthians 2:14, Heilig argues for an alternative to either hidden or unexpressed criticism of the empire in Paul’s writings, proposing that we might also consider texts that have been overlooked.
Until N. T. Wright, most commentators on the Pauline works considered Paul to be silent on or even supportive of the Roman empire. Wright changed that with an article in 2000, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” proposing that subtexts could be found in Paul’s writing of an anti-imperial nature, referred to as hidden subtexts. John M. G. Barclay responded with a critique outlining five necessary conditions that would need to be met to accept Wright’s hypothesis that Wright answered in a chapter of Paul and the Faithfulness of God in 2013. A more recent paper by Laura Robinson questions the “hidden subtext” idea proposing that they are not hidden but just are not there, and that the concerns evoked by Wright about surveillance by the empire were unwarranted.
In this work, Heilig seeks to move the discussion to a new place. In addition to challenging Robinson’s assessment of the dangers Christians faced, invoking for example, the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, and the troubles Paul actually found himself in, he proposes the idea that Paul’s criticism is not so much hidden as perhaps, at least in some passages, overlooked. After mentioning passages like 1 Corinthians 2:6 and 1 Thessalonians 3:3, he focuses much of this monograph on 2 Corinthians 2:14:
But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere.
2 CORINTHIANS 2:14, NIV.
A significant part of Heilig’s argument, overlooked in most commentaries, is the contemporary context of the victory procession of Claudius in 44 AD, celebrating his victory over Britannia. The Corinthians actually had an emperor cult that celebrated this victory. References to a triumphal procession would readily evoke this event in the minds of the Corinthians, not simply a general military practice. He explores the challenge to empire implicit in the reference God leading this procession, spreading the knowledge of the victory of Christ. Heilig argues that this, at very least expresses a sense of “unease” with the empire. He also suggests that this may be found even in the “clearest” of the passages on the empire, Romans 13:1-7, although I am surprised the author does not explore the standards for the just exercise of power implied in these passages, that is an implicit judgment against the much more arbitrary exercise of “the sword” in actuality.
In the last chapter before the conclusion, he decries the woeful state of access to the most current scholarship on context for biblical commentators, illustrated by the “overlooked” material on Claudius. I felt that, while this may be valid, I would have been more greatly helped by a discussion of further research along the lines of this work, and at least a preliminary overview of other passages where he thought criticism may have been overlooked rather than hidden.
That said, I do think this proposal offers new ground for work on Paul’s unease with empire and the realities faced by early Christians navigating Roman society, one that recognizes both Paul’s courage and discretion.
_______________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
Until N. T. Wright, most commentators on the Pauline works considered Paul to be silent on or even supportive of the Roman empire. Wright changed that with an article in 2000, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” proposing that subtexts could be found in Paul’s writing of an anti-imperial nature, referred to as hidden subtexts. John M. G. Barclay responded with a critique outlining five necessary conditions that would need to be met to accept Wright’s hypothesis that Wright answered in a chapter of Paul and the Faithfulness of God in 2013. A more recent paper by Laura Robinson questions the “hidden subtext” idea proposing that they are not hidden but just are not there, and that the concerns evoked by Wright about surveillance by the empire were unwarranted.
In this work, Heilig seeks to move the discussion to a new place. In addition to challenging Robinson’s assessment of the dangers Christians faced, invoking for example, the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, and the troubles Paul actually found himself in, he proposes the idea that Paul’s criticism is not so much hidden as perhaps, at least in some passages, overlooked. After mentioning passages like 1 Corinthians 2:6 and 1 Thessalonians 3:3, he focuses much of this monograph on 2 Corinthians 2:14:
But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere.
2 CORINTHIANS 2:14, NIV.
A significant part of Heilig’s argument, overlooked in most commentaries, is the contemporary context of the victory procession of Claudius in 44 AD, celebrating his victory over Britannia. The Corinthians actually had an emperor cult that celebrated this victory. References to a triumphal procession would readily evoke this event in the minds of the Corinthians, not simply a general military practice. He explores the challenge to empire implicit in the reference God leading this procession, spreading the knowledge of the victory of Christ. Heilig argues that this, at very least expresses a sense of “unease” with the empire. He also suggests that this may be found even in the “clearest” of the passages on the empire, Romans 13:1-7, although I am surprised the author does not explore the standards for the just exercise of power implied in these passages, that is an implicit judgment against the much more arbitrary exercise of “the sword” in actuality.
In the last chapter before the conclusion, he decries the woeful state of access to the most current scholarship on context for biblical commentators, illustrated by the “overlooked” material on Claudius. I felt that, while this may be valid, I would have been more greatly helped by a discussion of further research along the lines of this work, and at least a preliminary overview of other passages where he thought criticism may have been overlooked rather than hidden.
That said, I do think this proposal offers new ground for work on Paul’s unease with empire and the realities faced by early Christians navigating Roman society, one that recognizes both Paul’s courage and discretion.
_______________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
February 11, 2023
One pressing question in New Testament—and particularly Pauline—literature is the relationship between early Christianity and the Roman Empire. We know from history that Rome’s initial indifference to Christianity gave way to persecution and then eventually turned to syncretism under Constantine, but what did Jesus, Paul, and the first generation of Christians say or think about their imperial overlords? The question is an important one because it could provide modern believers with a guide to interacting with our own modern political systems. How much did Paul critique Rome and how strong or explicit were his critiques? In The Apostle and the Empire, Christoph Heilig offers an academic and in-depth look at Paul’s teachings, concluding that Paul was not as silent in his critique against the Empire as some have thought.
First and foremost, this is an academic work. Heilig references both N.T. Wright and John M.G. Barclay heavily and assumes that readers will be familiar with their work before launching into his. Heilig is, in some ways, a moderating force between the two—tempering Wright’s position that leans toward Paul’s political activism while suggesting that Barclay’s view isn’t quite strong enough. But Heilig doesn’t just explicate and moderate, he goes further and deeper than either Barclay or Wright, to argue that scholars on both sides of the debate have overlooked important passages—the triumphal procession of 2 Corinthians, in particular—in the discussions of Paul’s view of empire.
The Apostle and the Empire builds on Heilig’s 2015 book Hidden Criticism?, revealing the results of a half-decade of further study and research on the topic. Heilig’s conclusion is that while Paul might not have been as openly political as some would have liked for him to have been, there is both implicit and explicit criticism of the Roman Empire in Paul’s writings. Further, Paul’s lack of strong explicit criticism is not evidence of Paul condoning the empire, but rather understanding that the promulgation of the Kingdom of God was the strongest criticism of Caesar’s empire that he could give.
I’m not quite enough of a scholar to appreciate this book to its fullest, but it’s obvious that Heilig has a passion for the topic. He navigates the passages with ease, shows excellent understanding of others working in this area, and adds significantly to the conversation. While I would have liked to have seen some thoughts on how his perspective can affect our modern political theologies, that was not Heilig’s primary goal. Well-researched and well-argued, The Apostle and the Empire aptly makes the case that Paul was indeed a vocal critic of the Roman Empire, but was careful to criticize in such a way that refrained from being needlessly inflammatory or detracted from the preaching of the Kingdom of God.
First and foremost, this is an academic work. Heilig references both N.T. Wright and John M.G. Barclay heavily and assumes that readers will be familiar with their work before launching into his. Heilig is, in some ways, a moderating force between the two—tempering Wright’s position that leans toward Paul’s political activism while suggesting that Barclay’s view isn’t quite strong enough. But Heilig doesn’t just explicate and moderate, he goes further and deeper than either Barclay or Wright, to argue that scholars on both sides of the debate have overlooked important passages—the triumphal procession of 2 Corinthians, in particular—in the discussions of Paul’s view of empire.
The Apostle and the Empire builds on Heilig’s 2015 book Hidden Criticism?, revealing the results of a half-decade of further study and research on the topic. Heilig’s conclusion is that while Paul might not have been as openly political as some would have liked for him to have been, there is both implicit and explicit criticism of the Roman Empire in Paul’s writings. Further, Paul’s lack of strong explicit criticism is not evidence of Paul condoning the empire, but rather understanding that the promulgation of the Kingdom of God was the strongest criticism of Caesar’s empire that he could give.
I’m not quite enough of a scholar to appreciate this book to its fullest, but it’s obvious that Heilig has a passion for the topic. He navigates the passages with ease, shows excellent understanding of others working in this area, and adds significantly to the conversation. While I would have liked to have seen some thoughts on how his perspective can affect our modern political theologies, that was not Heilig’s primary goal. Well-researched and well-argued, The Apostle and the Empire aptly makes the case that Paul was indeed a vocal critic of the Roman Empire, but was careful to criticize in such a way that refrained from being needlessly inflammatory or detracted from the preaching of the Kingdom of God.
June 15, 2024
If I were an academic whose discipline was the exegesis of the books of the New Testament, I would have really enjoyed this book, particularly if I also was well versed in Ancient Greek. I am not. Consequently, the book was a disappointment. Heilig is a very clear, thoughtful and accessible academic, but the book presupposes a lot, including the current state of Pauline research and an interest in a deep dive into a single verse and a single word within that verse from the New Testament.
To his credit, I clearly understand the stakes of the argument. On the one side, there are the members of the research community who, taking from James Scott's Domination and the Arts of Resistance, seek to delineate how Paul may have provided a critical voice within the empire through the use of a subtext that would have been hidden from everyday Roman/Pagan readers. On the other side, there are those who argue that if you can't see the elephant in the forest, it's because it isn't there; likewise with Paul, if a reading of the text doesn't demonstrate resistance to Roman rule the simplest explanation is that it is because Paul wasn't putting up resistance in his ministry.
Heilig, though he acknowledges some validity to the latter argument, nonetheless argues that critique and resistance can be found, and proceeds to demonstrate it through an analysis for the Greek word for Triumph and the Roman practice of the Triumph in which those defeated militarily are paraded through the streets of Rome in an act of public humiliation and in honor of the Roman General/Emperor who led the campaign.
The book makes a good, though hidden point, that James Scott's framework in Domination and the Arts of Resistance doesn't provide a sufficient nuance to explain Paul, whose resistance as a member of a marginalized group is nonetheless also informed by proselytizing to the oppressors. This position is distinct form Scott whose work looks at resistance in caste systems (slaves, serfs, ethnic minorities etc...) where lower classes are not looking to convert their oppressors but are instead seeking to undermine oppression or carve out a space that the oppressors cannot touch.
If you want to read 40 pages or so on the meaning and historical context for the word Triumph, this is the book for you. If not, you may want to look for another text that explores the paradox of resistance as conversion.
To his credit, I clearly understand the stakes of the argument. On the one side, there are the members of the research community who, taking from James Scott's Domination and the Arts of Resistance, seek to delineate how Paul may have provided a critical voice within the empire through the use of a subtext that would have been hidden from everyday Roman/Pagan readers. On the other side, there are those who argue that if you can't see the elephant in the forest, it's because it isn't there; likewise with Paul, if a reading of the text doesn't demonstrate resistance to Roman rule the simplest explanation is that it is because Paul wasn't putting up resistance in his ministry.
Heilig, though he acknowledges some validity to the latter argument, nonetheless argues that critique and resistance can be found, and proceeds to demonstrate it through an analysis for the Greek word for Triumph and the Roman practice of the Triumph in which those defeated militarily are paraded through the streets of Rome in an act of public humiliation and in honor of the Roman General/Emperor who led the campaign.
The book makes a good, though hidden point, that James Scott's framework in Domination and the Arts of Resistance doesn't provide a sufficient nuance to explain Paul, whose resistance as a member of a marginalized group is nonetheless also informed by proselytizing to the oppressors. This position is distinct form Scott whose work looks at resistance in caste systems (slaves, serfs, ethnic minorities etc...) where lower classes are not looking to convert their oppressors but are instead seeking to undermine oppression or carve out a space that the oppressors cannot touch.
If you want to read 40 pages or so on the meaning and historical context for the word Triumph, this is the book for you. If not, you may want to look for another text that explores the paradox of resistance as conversion.
April 25, 2023
This book jumps into the middle of an existing conversation. There is very little interaction with Paul's implicit and explicit criticism of Rome outside of 2 Corinthians 2 (and that is not much). This book is certainly for a very select group of individuals and is not an introduction to the subject.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews