In the course of saying some interesting and true things about Rome and Roman empire, Richard Horsely raised this revealing question: What is it, he wondered, that made so many diaspora Jews join the church so quickly? What was driving them? Why were they looking for something new? The way he raised the question made it clear that he was discounting 1) the expectation that nearly every Jew shared of a future redemption and 2) the work of the Spirit.
Horsley also seemed to draw a straight line between Jewish resistance to Rome and Paul’s resistance to Rome, as if the latter were a performance of the former with some minor adjustments. But this misses the radically different way that Christians resisted. Horsley has embraced one of the revolutions that NT Wright talks about when he says that Jesus was “doubly revolutionary,” but he seems completely to have missed the second revolution. Horsley’s Paul is a revolutionary, but he had not adopted a revolutionary way of being revolutionary.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.