1.1 The Aims and Audience of Augustus's Res Gestae

Upon the death of Augustus in 14 c.e., the Younger Drusus, Tiberius's son, read out the will of the deceased princeps at a meeting of the Roman senate, along with three other documents. The three documents had been entrusted, along with his will, to the Vestal virgins for their protection in April 13 c.e. The first document gave Augustus's instructions regarding his funeral; the second document was “a summary of his achievements” (index rerum a se gestarum); the third document provided “a brief account of the whole empire” (Suetonius, Aug. 101.4). The second document, better known to us as the RG, was to be inscribed on bronze tablets and displayed in the front of Augustus's mausoleum, which stood prominently on the Campus Martius (Field of Mars), its construction having been finalized by 28 b.c.e. The RG was composed in the final year of Augustus's life, when he was seventy-six years old and in the thirty-seventh year of his tribunician power (4.4; 35.2). Somewhere between his birthday on 23 September 13 c.e. and his death on 19 August 14 c.e., the work was completed, perhaps provoked by two omens in his final year presaging his imminent death (Suetonius, Aug. 90–92), though it is possible that the work had been in progress much earlier.Footnote ¹⁴ The RG is a self-eulogy in which Augustus sets out his achievements and accolades: his honors (1–7) and special tributes achieved during his principate (9–13); the honors for his sons (14); his impensae (expenses) incurred on behalf of the state and the Roman people (15–24); his res gestae ([military] achievements) by which he subdued the world to the power of Rome (25–33); and, last, his pre-eminence as an example of virtue to all (34–35).

Scholars have suggested a variety of purposes for the RG. It is either

1. a) “a rendering of accounts” (Theodor Mommsen);Footnote ¹⁵

2. b) a statement “that his rule was not arbitrary, but founded on law” (Zvi Yavetz);Footnote ¹⁶

3. c) a document, though having multiple purposes, which was “aimed at justifying his deification and … encouraging the senate to expedite the process” (Alison E. Cooley; also Brian Bosworth);Footnote ¹⁷

4. d) an account of Augustus's philosophy of government, aimed at establishing a stable state (Suetonius, Aug. 28.2) and instructing his successor, Tiberius (Edwin S. Ramage; John Scheid);Footnote ¹⁸

5. e) a document leaving Augustus's “own version of events to guide the assessment of … posterity” (Ronald Ridley; also Jean Gagé);Footnote ¹⁹ or

6. f) “an apologia, containing the things which Augustus wished to be remembered about his life, and omitting things which were inconsistent with the picture he was drawing” (Peter A. Brunt and John M. Moore).Footnote ²⁰

It is beyond the scope of this article to assess the viability of these interpretations, though, from what follows, I consider suggestions e) and f) to capture best Augustus's intentions. I will focus on the apologetic purpose of the RG against the backdrop of the contemporary attacks made against the princeps. The aims of the document should also be situated within the traditional quest for ancestral glory among the Roman nobles and within the Roman literature of exempla. This can be discerned from Augustus's statement in the RG that he would uphold the ancestral exempla and provide exempla for the imitation of posterity though his statue program in the forum Augustum (§1.1.2, below).Footnote ²¹ Only recently have scholars sufficiently appreciated this Augustan emphasis. Before we investigate this further, we have to discuss how the purpose of the RG related to Augustus's earlier memoirs.

1.2 The Epistle to the Romans: Paul's Counterblast to Augustus's Res Gestae?

Paul, a versatile and strategic thinker, would have been aware that a change in the geographic focus of his mission necessitated a change in its political and evangelistic apologetic, as he moved from the Greek East to Rome and Spain in the Latin West (Rom 15:19a–24). The apostle would have had to consider the pastoral and social implications of his apocalyptic gospel for auditors now living under the so-called “Golden Age” of Nero at Rome.Footnote ⁷² Among the pastoral issues that Paul had faced in the Greek East, the spiritual dangers posed by the idolatry of ruler worship was a clear emphasis in the apostle's teaching (1 Thess 1:9; 5:2–3; 1 Cor 2:6–8; 8:5–6, 10; 10:14–22; Gal 4:8–10).Footnote ⁷³ The imperial cult was ubiquitous among the indigenous cults in the eastern Mediterranean basin. Precisely because of the unprecedented benefits that it dispensed to the Greek city-states, it had become the most influential cult in securing clients across the Roman empire.Footnote ⁷⁴

In writing to believers living at mid–fifties Rome in the Latin West, however, Paul was engaging a city that had been enthralled for generations by a heated quest for ancestral glory. The leading men of Rome had striven to outdo each other by achieving glory for their houses through the acquisition of magistracies, the distribution of beneficence, and the establishment of virtus (manliness) on the battlefield. This quest for glory from republican times through to the early imperial age had produced a boastful and hierarchical society (cf. Rom 1:30; 3:27; 4:2–3; 5:11; 12:3, 10b). The leaders of Rome evinced hatred for their political inimici (enemies: cf. Rom 5:6–8; 12:14–21), offered clementia (mercy) to those worthy of pardon (cf. 11:31–32; 12:1, 8b), and maintained the barrier between the conqueror and the conquered (cf. 1:14). This quest for ancestral glory had eventuated in the triumph of the Julian house and its idolatrous cult (cf. Rom 1:22), with the result that glory had become the preserve of the ruler and his family (cf. 11:36; 16:27; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 3:18).Footnote ⁷⁵ Consequently, Augustus as princeps was the embodiment of all virtue (cf. Rom 5:18–19), the father of his country (cf. 4:11–12, 16, 18; 8:15; 9:10), and the iconic exemplum for those aspiring to leadership (cf. 8:29).

Undoubtedly, the apostle was sensitive to the importance of the quest for glory for the Roman nobility and their imperial successors from the victories of their generals over the nations of the Greek East. Such conquests had acquired their own momentum in oral culture. The famous houses of the Scipios and the Metelli reinforced this popular adulation when their generals received or assumed a second cognomen in commemoration of their victories (e.g., Africanus, Asiaticus, Macedonicus, Numidicus, Delmaticus, Creticus, etc.). Monuments to the achievements of the generals, republican and imperial, were also present in the Greek East. These included the Greek and Latin copies of Augustus's RG in the province of Galatia, as well as the honorific monument to the Roman general Gaius Memmius at Ephesus,Footnote ⁷⁶ the Sebasteion (i.e., imperial sanctuary) of Claudius and Nero at Aphrodisias,Footnote ⁷⁷ and the Augustan triumphal arches throughout the empire and the Sebasteion at Pisidian Antioch.Footnote ⁷⁸

It is likely that the relentless boasting of imperial monuments in the Greek East, including the RG at Pisidian Antioch (§1.2, above), provoked Paul to consider how he might challenge the Roman quest for glory with the gospel of divine grace revealed in the crucified and risen Christ. This decision would have had profound theological and social consequences for Roman believers if, as Thomas R. Schreiner has argued,Footnote ⁷⁹ the center of Paul's theology was God's glory in Christ. Paul's gospel would have grabbed the attention of his Roman auditors and challenged their fascination with ancestral glory and its culmination in the Julian house, given the widespread use of the language of glory in Romans.Footnote ⁸⁰ Paul expected that the Spirit would continue to transform Roman believers in Christ when they put to death in their lives the values of the status-obsessed and boastful society of Rome (Rom 6:12–14, 19; 7:4–6; 12:1–3, 10b). The social consequences of this transformation would have been initially imperceptible to the Roman rulers and their representatives, but the cruciform outworking of Paul's gospel brought a distinctive newness to the social relations and beneficence of the house churches that were appearing across the Roman empire.Footnote ⁸¹ Although this aim was not Paul's only purpose in writing Romans, or indeed his primary purpose, nevertheless Paul highlighted the social and ethical application of God's eschatological glory revealed in Christ for believers living under the Julio-Claudian ruler in the first century.

2.1 The Centrality of Ancestral Tradition

Although Augustus does not highlight ancestral tradition as prominently as other motifs in the RG, its importance remains undiminished for the establishment of consensus in his principate. First, Augustus records that he had rejected the post of guardian of laws and customs without colleague as unconstitutional (6.1; see §2.6, below, for other examples) because it was inconsistent with ancestral custom (contra morem maiorum). Second, Augustus explains that his legislation was designed to restore “many ancient customs (m[ulta e]xempla maiorum) that were already becoming obsolete” (8.5). Third, the temple of Janus was closed three times in Augustus's principate, in accordance with ancestral wishes (13: [maiores nostri voluer]unt). Fourth, in his annexation of Greater Armenia in 20 b.c.e., Augustus acted in accordance with ancestral example (27.1: maiorum nostrorum exemplo) by handing over the kingdom to Tigranes, following Pompey's precedent of 66 b.c.e. What is fascinating about these references to custom is the scope of their reference. The traditions of the ancestors informed Augustus's approach to legislation, his acceptance of magistracies, the performance of religious ritual, and diplomatic relations within the Roman empire. Finally, Augustus's meticulous attention in the RG to the Roman gods (8.1; 19.1–2; 20.1, 3–4; 24.1–2) and to the great priestly colleges (7.3) represents another example of his devotion to ancestral tradition.

In Romans, Paul displays a positive attitude to ancestral honor, although Paul's discussion operates in a Jewish context. Paul's rhetorical purpose in writing in this manner to Roman Gentiles living in the capital needs to be understood (Rom 1:13; 11:13; 15:15–16).Footnote ⁸² Paul depicts Christ as the fulfillment of world history (Rom 5:14: 'Αδὰμ ὅς ἐστιν τύπος το μέλλοντος) and Jewish covenantal history (10:4: τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς) in a rhetorical strategy designed, among other purposes, to dismantle the ideology of rule articulated through the Roman “founder” narratives (i.e., Romulus and Remus, Aeneas). Augustus, as the new “Romulus” and “Aeneas” of Rome,Footnote ⁸³ restored to the capital its mos maiorum, with the result that the Roman gods and customs were properly honored once again. Paul dismantles this construct by articulating the Jewish “founder” narrative of humanity (Rom 5:12–21) that for Paul, as a believer, found its culmination in Christ as opposed to Augustus.

Significantly, Paul does not reject his Jewish ancestry and the soteriological privileges flowing from it (Rom 3:1–2; 9:4–5; 11:2; Phil 3:4b–6). He affirms that Abraham was the forefather of the Jewish nation (4:1). Moreover, Christ was descended from David (Rom 1:3; 10:5), confirming the promises given to the patriarchs (15:8b). The ancestral privileges of Israel were given continuing recognition through the gospel being extended to the Jews first because of their salvation priority (first: Rom 1:17b; 2:10b; first fruits: 11:16a). Disobedient Israel would still experience soteriological blessing when her Messiah returned as the eschatological Deliverer from heavenly Zion (Rom 11:25–27; see vv. 12, 15b). The reason for this continuing mercy was Israel's divine election and her beloved status because of her ancestors (Rom 11:28; 15:8b). Even though Israel was currently stumbling (Rom 9:22, 27, 31–33; 10:2–3; 11:17a, 20a, 21a, 25b), an elect remnant was being called out by divine grace in the present age (11:1–6, 11a, 13, 23).

In retelling Israel's story in light of its fulfillment in Christ, Paul was introducing the Gentile Romans to a different ancestral tradition, whose antiquity eclipsed the ancestors of Rome, and by which God would save the nations. According to Paul, Roman Gentiles, by divine grace, had been grafted into an even more venerable ancestry as a “wild olive shoot” (Rom 11:17). This was necessary because the founding ancestor of all humanity, Adam, had plunged Jew and Gentile—including the Roman ruler—into the reign of sin and death (Rom 5:12–21). In this regard, the Augustan attachment to ancestral tradition, with its focus on the revival of Roman religion, was another expression of Gentile idolatry (Rom 1:22–23) and faced God's judgment (1:18–31).

Consequently, Paul argues that the pursuit of ancestral advantage in order to outstrip competitors and, particularly in Israel's case, to establish her own ethnic righteousness, was based on misguided zeal and a deficient knowledge of God (Rom 10:2; Gal 1:14). The claim to ancestral advantage over others (Rom 9:6b–7) overlooked the impartiality of God's judgment (2:5, 11).Footnote ⁸⁴ Moreover, such a quest supplanted Christ's honor as the universal soteriological benefactor and replaced it with one's own (Rom 10:3–4; see 2 Cor 11:21b–23a; Phil 3:7–11 [see 2:5–11]). Instead, God had mercifully incorporated the Gentiles from all nations into the ancestry of Abraham through the same electing grace and justifying faith that Abraham and Isaac, as the “fathers” of a new humanity (πατήρ: Rom 4:12, 16, 17; 9:10), had experienced themselves.Footnote ⁸⁵ The culmination of this new ancestry for Roman Gentiles occurred in Christ as τέλος and κύριος as opposed to Augustus as pater patriae (Rom 10:4, 9; cf. Acts 17:6–7). In the late republic, the heated competition for ancestral glory had plunged Rome into a century of civil war, but the fortunes of Rome had revived again with the blood-stained advent of the Augustan principate, a feature of Augustus's rise to power that his critics relentlessly highlighted.Footnote ⁸⁶ But now the nations of the world, including Rome, had found an infinitely more merciful ruler in Christ (Rom 15:12), who had freely extended his eternal glory and grace to his unworthy dependents (3:23; 8:18–21, 30b) by calling them to the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). The contrast between the Julian and the early Christian fulfillment of ancestral custom could not have been starker.

2.2 The Culture of Self-Advertisement

We have already touched on the boasting techniques (§1.1.2, above) that Augustus employed to keep his pre-eminence at the forefront in the RG. Another technique that Augustus used was to emphasize implicitly how his achievements superseded the luminaries of the past: Romulus, Hercules, Alexander, Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra.Footnote ⁸⁷ Augustus also engaged in (what might be called) “typology” by presenting the battle of Salamis, in a public spectacle for the Roman people (RG 23), as a forerunner of his battle of Actium.Footnote ⁸⁸ Moreover, the mausoleum of Augustus, with its Latin copy of the RG, might also be seen as rivaling the mausoleum of King Mausolos of Caria at Halicarnassos.Footnote ⁸⁹

Further, as noted (§1.1, above), scholars have suggested that an aim of the RG was the justification of Augustus's apotheosis.Footnote ⁹⁰ The evidence for this is persuasive. Q. Ennius's epigram about the apotheosis of Scipio Africanus (Cicero, Tusc. 5.49; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 108.34) and Euhemerus's portrait of Zeus in the Sacred Record are cited as parallels to the RG in this regard.Footnote ⁹¹ The conferral of the name “Augustus” (34.2) and the insertion of his name in the hymn of the Salii (10.1) confirm Augustus's “god-like” status as a benefactor and military conqueror.Footnote ⁹² The spatial relationship between Augustus's mausoleum and the Agrippan Pantheon in the Campus Martius also points symbolically to the possibility of apotheosis.Footnote ⁹³

Caution needs to be exercised here. We need to distinguish these popular honors from Augustus's own self-perception in the RG. Augustus's removal of eighty silver statues of himself from Rome (24.2) shows his discomfort with excessive accolades, silver and gold having been reserved for the statues of deities.Footnote ⁹⁴ Whatever might have been the symbolic message implied by the spatial relationship between Augustus's mausoleum and Agrippa's Pantheon, or by the location of his house in the Palatine, Augustus ensured that at his own mausoleum the RG did not assert his personal claim to divinity in advance of his death. As was the case with the apotheosis of his adoptive father, that decision was the senate's prerogative.

Paul's “boasting” terminology (καυχάομαι: Rom 2:17, 23; 5:2, 3, 11; καύχημα: 4:2; καύχησις: 3:27; 15:17) is significant in Romans, given the centrality of boasting in the eulogistic culture of republican and Augustan Rome.Footnote ⁹⁵ Paul jettisons any idea that Jews, on the basis of their nomistic heritage, could boast in their performance before God (Rom 2:17, 23). But, in an equally radical critique, Paul argues that the “works” of the Gentile Abraham (Rom 4:9–11) were disqualified as a boast before God (4:2), as much as the “works” of the Jewish Abraham (4:12). Since Abraham was an uncircumcised Gentile when he was justified (Gen 15:6; 17:1–14), he became a potent symbol for the Gentile Romans who, facing God's wrath because of the idolatry of their ancestral gods (Rom 1:21–23), would experience God's justification in Christ.

Here Paul targets the merit-based culture of the Greco-Roman world with its hierarchies of wealth, status, and performance. Auditors familiar with the boasting of the RG would have seen the point. Boasting was excluded for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile, because of justifying faith (Rom 3:27). Instead of striving to excel the ancestral luminaries of the past, believers were now to boast in God because of Christ's reconciling work as mediator (Rom 5:11: καυχώμενοι ἐν τ θε διὰ το κυρίου ἡμν 'Ιησο Χριστο; see also v. 10a). Further, the eschaton was a stimulus for humility: believers were to boast in “the hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:2). In the present, however, the believer's boasting was to be focused on the cruciform nature of Christian existence (Rom 5:3a: καυχώμεθα ἐν τας θλ´ιψεσιν). Suffering, Paul argues, produces the character transformation that would give reality to the hope to come (5:3b–5). Last, Christian ministry, including Paul's outreach to the Gentiles (Rom 15:18), occasioned boasting in Christ for God's work through his apostle (15:17: [τὴν] καύχησιν ἐν Χριστ). In sum, Paul had realized that the location of all boasting and future transformation resided in the work of God, experienced paradoxically in suffering for Christ. This different perspective pinpricked the Roman culture of self-advertisement.

Additionally, Paul employs “glory” terminology, with its Jewish base, throughout the epistle to debunk the Roman quest for ancestral glory and to challenge its idolatrous concentration in the Julian house.Footnote ⁹⁶ It is also significant that Paul in his letter to believers at Rome—where rulers were not divinized in the state cult until after their death—attributed to Christ his boldest accolade in his epistles: θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ανας (Rom 9:5: God blessed forever; 1 Tim 2:5).Footnote ⁹⁷ Last, the theocentric emphasis of Romans deflates the self-promoting culture of Rome at its self-sufficient core, emphasizing where true glory was found and directed (Rom 11:36; 16:27).Footnote ⁹⁸

2.3 The Accumulation and Rendering of Honor

The accumulation of honor and its rendering to others is another intriguing dimension of Augustus's self-eulogy in the RG. In 1–7 Augustus focuses on the honors that he had received and follows these up with other special tributes paid to him (9–14).Footnote ⁹⁹ As Edwin A. Judge notes, they demonstrate “the scale of the Roman people's trust in Augustus.”Footnote ¹⁰⁰ In particular, Augustus highlights the special honors given to him by the senate and Roman people (1.2: decretis honorif[i]cis; 11: [pro] red[itu me]o; 12.1: honos; 12.2: [pro] redi[t]u meo; 14.1: honoris mei; 34.2; 35.1: quae mihi ex s.c. pos[it]ae [sunt censuit]).Footnote ¹⁰¹

Two cases are particularly interesting because they show Augustus taking care that his honor did not infringe upon the honors conferred on others in the past. In RG 20.1 Augustus states that he restored the Capitoline temple and the theater of Pompey, “without inscribing my name anywhere on them.” Public works represented a prized form of competition for glory among the Roman nobility because of their “lasting impact.”Footnote ¹⁰² What had been essentially private monuments became public monuments on a grand scale with the erection of the theater of Pompey and the forum of Caesar in the mid-first century b.c.e.Footnote ¹⁰³ Therefore Augustus demonstrates his restraint by refusing to monopolize the honor of another, especially given the fact that Pompey and his son Pompeius Sextus became vigorous opponents of the Julian family in the late republic (RG 25.1).Footnote ¹⁰⁴

Augustus had already made the same claim in RG 19.1 (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 31). In this instance, Augustus permitted the portico at the Flaminian circus to retain the name of the portico of Cn. Octavius, the praetor who had built it some time between 167–163 b.c.e. in commemoration of his naval victory and triumph over King Perseus of Macedonia (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 34.7.13).Footnote ¹⁰⁵ This restraint on Augustus's part is significant in view of the fact that he had personally dedicated so many public works at Rome to members of his family.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Moreover, as the victor in (what was probably) the most significant naval battle of Roman history (31 b.c.e.), Augustus would have understood well the personal significance of Octavius's honor as far as the quest for honor was concerned. Sensitive to traditional values, Augustus let Cn. Octavius's portico stand unadorned by any additional claim to glory on his own part,Footnote ¹⁰⁷ though Augustus displayed in the restored portico the standards he had recaptured from the Dalmati and Illyrian wars. However, Paul Zanker is correct in observing that “this was one case where the ‘modest’ refusal to rename the building after himself was no hardship … since it already bore his name.”Footnote ¹⁰⁸

Additionally, it is worth remembering that in the forum Augustum Augustus depicts himself as the pater patriae who has brought republican history to a glorious culmination (RG 21.1; 35.1; Dio Cassius 56.34.2–3).Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Notwithstanding, Augustus still highlights the honors of famous leaders of the republic with inscriptions—which he had composed (Pliny, Nat. 22.6.13)—celebrating their management of state crises, as well as the achievements of his Julian forbears. Although this is not strictly “humility” in the modern sense, Augustus was careful not to diminish the legitimate claims to honor of those who, in popular opinion, had contributed to the welfare of the res publica. How does Paul's understanding of honor relate to the Augustan interplay of accepting personal honors and honoring others worthy of honor?

Paul's language of “honor” in Romans (τιμή: Rom 2:7, 10; 9:21; 12:10; 13:7; ἀτιμάζω: 1:24; 26; 2:23; ἀτιμ´ια: 1:26; 9:21) has theological and social reference. In terms of the former, Paul speaks of God being dishonored through acts of sin (Rom 1:24, 26; 2:23), his election being displayed in vessels of honor and dishonor (9:21), and his honoring those who persevere in doing good (2:7, 10). However, only two honorific texts in Romans have social reference (Rom 12:10b; 13:7b), though their implications are intriguing.

First, the precise meaning of Romans 12:10b is disputed. There Paul either exhorts believers to “outdo one another in showing honor” (rsv, nrsv, esv: τ τιμ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι), or to “honor one another above yourselves” (niv), or to “give preference to one another in honor” (kjv, nasb),Footnote ¹¹⁰ or to “take the lead in showing honor to another.”Footnote ¹¹¹ However we translate the verse, we are seeing here a different dynamic from Augustus's refusal to impinge on the honor of others. Undoubtedly, Augustus recognized the rights of his competitors to maintain remembrance of honors already allocated, and honored the great men from the republican past as paradigms of leadership to be imitated in the future. Nevertheless, it is true that Augustus possessed extraordinary honors (RG 34.2–3a) as the victor of Actium (34.1: potens rerum omnium [I had power over everything]), even though it was the case that public consensus had pressed acceptance upon him (34.1: per consensum universorum [although by everyone's agreement]; 34.2 quo pro merito [in return for this desert of mine; trans. Edwin A. Judge]). Moreover, Augustus's divestment of various formal powers in 27 and 23 b.c.e. (RG 34:3b) spawned further extravagant public honors being pressed upon him, which he vaunted in the climax to the RG (35.1).

For Paul, however, the honoring of one another is an expression of love without pretense (Rom 12:9a: ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος; 12:10). This motif links together all the plural participles in verses 9–13, each possessing imperatival force,Footnote ¹¹² including προηγούμενοι.Footnote ¹¹³ By means of this leitmotif uniting the pericope (Rom 12:9–13), culminating in the imperatives inculcating love for the enemy (12:14–21), the apostle pinpricks the hierarchal social relationships of antiquity and the dynamic of the reciprocation of honor animating the Greco-Roman honor system. Paul's emphasis on mutual honoring (Rom 12:10b: ἀλλήλους), as an expression of corporate love within the body of Christ, posed an alternative to the status-riddled operation of honorific rituals in Greco-Roman society.Footnote ¹¹⁴ There is little doubt that the Jesus tradition (Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11) has impacted Paul's teaching here.Footnote ¹¹⁵ But, ultimately, only the social dishonor of the cross (Rom 5:6–8; cf. Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5–8) experienced by the divinely vindicated Lord of all (Phil 2:9–11) can explain why Paul adopted this counter-cultural stance.

Second, Paul states that honor should be rendered to whom honor is due (Rom 13:7b: τ τὴν τιμὴν τὴν τιμήν), including the imperial authorities (Rom 13:1–6). But Paul's argument is subtler than it first appears. He insists that while the demands of the Greco-Roman reciprocity system had to be met (Rom 13:8a), love now was to be the transforming dynamic that upended a dominant cultural convention (13:8b–10). Here we are reminded again of the leitmotif of “genuine love” (Rom 12:9a: ἀνυπόκριτος) that undergirded the pericope of 12:9–13, discussed above. To be sure, Paul is acknowledging in verse 7 the importance of officium (obligation) at Rome, with its rituals of gratitude and indebtedness to the gods, one's family, the state and patrons, imperial and local.Footnote ¹¹⁶ Contextually, Paul's emphasis is clearly upon honor to the Roman ruler (13:7b: τ τὸν ϕόρον τὸν ϕόρον), though he is also probably endorsing a wide array of honorific rituals to benefactors necessary for the smooth operation of the benefaction system in antiquity.Footnote ¹¹⁷ The believers from the two households within the imperial bureaucracy (Rom 16:10–11), as well as in the imperial house itself (Phil 4:22), would have understood well the conflicting tensions of “indebtedness” posed for them as members of the body of Christ and as members of the household of Caesar and his freedmen.Footnote ¹¹⁸ But the believer, including believers inside the imperial house, owed the debt of love to everyone (Rom 13:8b–10), without trace of favoritism, in Paul's reformulation of the honor system (13:8a).Footnote ¹¹⁹ Moreover, in Romans 13:1–6 Paul stripped the Roman ruler of his providential, prophetic, and teleological status in the imperial propaganda, reducing him, in agreement with the lxx, to “servant” status before God (13:4–6).Footnote ¹²⁰ Paul thereby ensured that the honoring of Christ had priority for believers, no matter how legitimate the ruler's claims upon his subjects, clients, and the familia Caesaris might be.Footnote ¹²¹ Thus Romans 13:7b, when considered against the sophisticated rhetorical strategies of 13:1–10, articulates a different understanding of honorific rituals than is found in the Res Gestae.

2.4 The Conquest of the Nations

The motif of the “conquest of the nations” is central to the Res Gestae.Footnote ¹²² Announced first in the preface to the RG (note 42, above), the motif is handled with great skill as far as its ideological impact in the RG. In terms of Augustus's strategy of conquest, Augustus waged wars by land and sea against foreign nations (3.1; 4.3), pardoning only those whom he “could safely pardon” (3.2). His preferred policy, rather, was “to preserve than to destroy” the peoples of the nations (3.2; see 13). The most extensive discussion of the nations occurs in 25–33. The passage is a masterful example of Augustus's geopolitical categorization of the Roman empire by which he spotlights his exemplary virtue.Footnote ¹²³

After securing victory over Rome's internal enemies at Actium and Sicily (RG 25), Augustus pursued world conquest (26–27). Simultaneously, Augustus stabilized the Roman empire by establishing military colonies (28), reversing the humiliating losses to the Parthians (29), and pushing into the territory of the Pannonian peoples in order to create a buffer against barbarian invasion (30). In contrast to the militarism of 26–30, 31–33 presents the diplomatic strategies by which Augustus secured the loyalty of conquered peoples to Rome: engaging royal embassies, protecting suppliants seeking refuge, and meeting noble ambassadors. Importantly, Augustus emphasizes twice the unprecedented nature of these diplomatic contacts with the peoples (31.1; 32.3). Indeed, the highly exotic names of these peoples and their rulers would have dazzled Augustus's Roman audience with the extent of the empire (27, 32–33).

By means of this rich portrait of the military and diplomatic pacification of the peoples, the RG draws attention to two of the pivotal Augustan virtues—virtus (25–30) and clementia (31–33)—upon which the expansion of the Roman empire depended (34.2). This “grand narrative” of empire is a story about the virtuous Augustus ensuring the dominance of his house by victory on the battlefield (30.1; see 1.1; 2).Footnote ¹²⁴ How, then, does the Augustan understanding of the nations intersect with Paul's salvation narrative of the “nations” in Romans?

We have already discussed the rhetorical role that Paul assigned to Abraham, as the father of the nations, in arguing for the justification of the Gentiles (§2.1, above). What is interesting is Paul's language of “obedience” in describing his mission to the Gentile nations (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26). How does this relate to the rule of the “root of Jesse” over the Gentiles in Rom 15:12? Does Paul's mission to the Gentiles carry imperialist overtones similar to the RG?

Paul's typological use of lxx texts in Rom 15:3 (lxx Ps 68:10a; et 69:9a), 15:9 (lxx Ps 17:50; et 18:49; 2 Sam 22:50), 15:10 (lxx/et Deut 32:43), and 15:11 (lxx Ps 116:1; et 117:1) is a pivotal part of his rhetorical strategy in persuading his Roman auditors regarding God's messianic grace towards the Gentile nations.Footnote ¹²⁵ This was necessary not only because of the Jewish and Gentile tensions over boundary markers at Rome (Rom 14:1–15:13), but also because Paul had to ensure that any potential political divisions over the ruler, accompanied by attitudes of ethnic superiority (Rom 11:17–24), did not split believers living in the capital. The Gentile airs of superiority towards their Jewish brethren were probably attributable as much to the arrogance aroused by the Roman conquest of the nations as the anti-Semitism infecting the Roman intelligentsia in the mid-fifties.Footnote ¹²⁶ How, then, does Paul underscore by a typological exegesis of the lxx the need for his Gentile auditors at Rome to regain a renewed sense of humility before God and their fellow believers?

It is clear from the link between Rom 15:3a and 15:3b that the Messiah is the speaker in the lxx text cited in verse 3b. The messianic leitmotif is also present in the lxx texts cited in verses 9, 10, and 11.Footnote ¹²⁷ The Messiah, as Paul depicts him, addresses the Gentile nations in verses 9–11 in a winsome and celebratory manner. The Son of David praises God before the Gentiles for his salvation and Davidic descendants (v. 9), invites the Gentiles to rejoice in God's salvation from their enemies (v. 10), and summons them to praise God for his steadfast love and faithfulness (v. 11).Footnote ¹²⁸ A messianic proof-text from Isaiah (lxx Isa 11:10) brings Paul's typological use of the lxx to a resounding conclusion in verse 12. There the risen and reigning Messiah unites the nations under his personal rule and affirms their present incorporation into the body of Christ through the summons of divine grace. Here we have a conquest of the nations vastly different from that which we find in the RG or in the iconography of the Augustan triumphal arches and monuments (note 11, above). The Gentiles who formerly were neither God's people nor his loved one (Rom 9:25–26; see Hos 2:23; 1:10) had now become God's beloved people in Christ.

Consequently, Paul unfolds the social implications of this dramatic reversal of status for the Gentile nations. The soteriological “welcome” that the Messiah had extended to Jew and Gentile would resonate to the glory of God (Rom 15:7b: εἰς δόξαν το θεο) when each group unreservedly welcomed each other in love (15:7a), setting aside divisions over the maintenance of Jewish boundary markers (14:5–6, 13–21).Footnote ¹²⁹ For Paul, unity in worship between both ethnic groups glorifies God (Rom 15:6: ἵνα ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι δοξάζητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα το κυρ´ιου ἡμν 'Ιησο Χριστο). Paul's focus on ethnic reconciliation, culminating in the corporate magnification of God's glory, stood opposed to the hatred of the Romans articulated in the Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the Qumran writings.Footnote ¹³⁰ It also undermined the racial stereotyping of the Jews by the Roman intelligentsia in mid-fifties Rome (note 126, above). The hope of glory, realized in the messianic community of Christ, reconciled and unified diverse ethnic groups whose tortured history, until then, had made them implacable enemies. Whereas Augustus spared only those nations worth sparing (RG 3.2), God's impartial grace towards the nations brought about an ethnic and social leveling between the “foolish” barbarian (Rom 1:14a, 14b) and the “wise” Greek (Rom 1:14a, 14b). A different social dynamic led Paul, a former Pharisee (Gal 1:14–16; Phil 3:5–11), to be a debtor to Greeks and to barbarians in the Greek East and Latin West (Rom 1:14).

2.5 The Extension of Beneficence

In RG 15–24 Augustus sets out “the expenses (impensae) which he incurred for the state and the people of Rome” (Latin heading of the RG). The focus of Augustus's beneficence, apart from 24.1, is entirely on the city of Rome. The benefits are dispensed during the period spanning 40–2 b.c.e.Footnote ¹³¹ What is remarkable about this distribution of money is that it is derived from Augustus's private wealth: “out of my patrimony” (15.1; 17.2; [trans. Edwin A. Judge]), “with my own money” (17.1), “from my own granary and patrimony” (18), and “from the spoils of war” (15.1; 21.1, 2). Augustus sets out to whom donations were given, with the amounts in sesterces tabulated throughout the section: the urban plebs (15); soldiers and military colonists (16); the treasury (17–18); new buildings on existing public sites, buildings and installations restored, and new buildings erected on land donated by Augustus (19–21); games and spectacles (22–23); and, last, gifts to the gods (24).

Several observations are apposite. First, Augustus had inaugurated an age of grace that would be regarded by his successors as the watershed of beneficence in Roman history.Footnote ¹³² Second, Augustus latched onto the popular yearning for a “new age” through his establishment of the “centennial games” (22.2: lud[os s]aeculares).Footnote ¹³³ Third, the magnitude of the gifts underscored the magnitude of his virtue as a “god-like” benefactor. Fourth, the piety of Augustus towards the gods is underscored in the RG (20.4; 21.1–2; 22.2; 24.1–2; see 4.1–2; 7.3; 10.2; 13; 29.2; 34.2), as is his piety towards his father (2; 15.1; 20.3; 21.2) and his family (20.3; 21.1; 22.3). Augustus's piety towards the Roman state is demonstrated in every section of the RG.Footnote ¹³⁴ Fifth, as noted (§2.3, above), the building of public works was a traditional avenue of self-advertisement for the Roman noble in the republic. Once again, Augustus would have been perceived to be an upholder of ancestral tradition.

Since I have discussed this motif elsewhere,Footnote ¹³⁵ I will only briefly comment on the evidence of Romans. In Rom 5:12–21 the familiar idea of aeons from Jewish apocalyptic underlies Paul's “regnal” imagery (βασιλεύω: Rom 5:14a, 17a, 17b, 21a, 21b). However, the reign of Christ's grace (Rom 5:21) would have also recalled for Paul's auditors the Augustan “reign of grace” which had acquired iconic status as the age of unparalleled beneficence at Rome, establishing thereby a yardstick of generosity against which the subsequent Roman rulers would be measured. But the “Golden Age” inaugurated by Augustus's benefactions paled in comparison to Christ's grace displayed in his obedience unto death for his enemies (Rom 5:6–8, 18b, 19b), resulting in the liberation and transformation of his dependents (Rom 5:15–21). The language of “overflow” (περισσεύω: Rom 5:15, 17, 20) and “grace” (χάρις: 5:15b, 17b, 20b, 21b; χάρισμα: 5:15a, 16b) is found in the imperial propaganda—including the Augustan inscriptions—and would have resonated with first-century auditors familiar with the RG. Undoubtedly, the motif of God's overflowing generosity towards sinners, articulated in the Psalms, is at the core of Paul's theological thought in this passage.Footnote ¹³⁶ But that does not disqualify the resonances that would have been evoked by the Augustan age of grace for his auditors and its implied contrast with Christ's reign of grace.

2.6 The Authority of the Leader

We have already seen how, in terms of the ideology of leadership, Augustus's principate transformed the present and future generation of leaders by virtue of its commitment to and imitation of republican exempla (§1.1.2, above). In this process, Augustus had become the iconic exemplum of virtue—along with the republican luminaries who prefigured him—for those who aspired to leadership of the state. We must now look at Augustus's understanding of the nature of his rule in RG 34.1–35.1 and explore the role of consensus in the development of his unparalleled auctoritas (influence).

Until the recent discovery of a new fragment from Pisidian Antioch,Footnote ¹³⁷ the Latin text of RG 34.1 was reconstructed and translated as follows:

Traditionally, this has been interpreted as describing the manner by which Augustus came to acquire supreme power in the state. The consensus concerning his absolute control of affairs was achieved sometime after the second triumvirate in 32 b.c.e., but before the time when Augustus handed back the res publica in his sixth and seventh consulships (28–27 b.c.e.).Footnote ¹³⁹

However, the new fragment has revealed that the words [potitus reru]m (RG 34.1) are in reality [po]tens re[r]um. Thus the text should be translated:

This means that Augustus was already in total control, by universal consent, from the time of the end of the civil wars in 31 b.c.e. This was because of his spectacular victory over Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium. The imperial poets who singled out Actium as the providentially defining event in Augustus's rise to power, inaugurating a “new age” of blessing for Rome, were correct in their propaganda.Footnote ¹⁴¹ This makes Augustus's return of the res publica—properly translated as “the public property” rather than “the state” or “the republic”Footnote ¹⁴²—to the senate and the Roman people all the more significant. The honors given to Augustus in RG 34.2–35 celebrate the end of the civil war and the reestablishment of constitutional propriety through Augustus's divestment of his powers.Footnote ¹⁴³ In Augustus's estimation (34.2), the honors represent Rome's recognition of his preeminent merit (quo pro merito: in return for this desert of mine [trans. Edwin A. Judge]).Footnote ¹⁴⁴ The most singular honor for Augustus is his acclamation as pater patriae (35: father of the fatherland). As Judge observes, the new title “subjects everyone to a form of dependence, and elevates Augustus to a form of control … founded upon personal and community relations rather than legal ones.”Footnote ¹⁴⁵

How, then, did the authority of Augustus work out in everyday affairs? First, in the view of Augustus (RG 34.2), there was a distinction between his formal powers (potestas) and his authority (auctoritas): “After this time I excelled everyone in influence ([a]uctoritate), but I had no more power ([potest]atis) than the others who were my colleagues in each magistracy.” Although Augustus was equal to the other consuls and tribunes after the 27 b.c.e. settlement—his fellow magistrates possessing the same potestas—his “influence” was based on moral esteem. This gave Augustus supremacy in taking the lead and having priority of consultation as far as state affairs were concerned. Second, this moral esteem was strengthened by the “consensus” that Augustus was the undisputed ruler (34.1: per consensum). Further, Augustus forged consensus by acting within the republican mores, promoting traditional exempla and iconography, and exercising moderation and clemency.Footnote ¹⁴⁶ Augustus's refusal of magistracies and honors inconsistent with republican and ancestral tradition also fostered an aura of consensus (4.2; 5.1, 3; 6.1; 10.2; see 5.2). Third, the senate is depicted as actively working with Augustus in the RG: Augustus accedes to its directives (1.2–3; 4.2; 5.2; 9.1; 10.1; 11; 12.1, 2; 14.1; 34.2; 35.1), declines its honors (4.1; 5.2; 6.1), endorses its legislation (6.2; 8.1; 22.2), asks the senate for colleagues in power (6.2), and transfers his powers back to it (34.1). There is clear evidence of mutuality and a benevolent reciprocity in this relationship, notwithstanding Augustus's precedence in the senate as princeps senatus (7.2). As Edwin S. Ramage observes, “even though Augustus clearly dominates, there is a harmony and unity, a concordia, that makes this new form of government successful.”Footnote ¹⁴⁷

In comparing Paul's understanding of leadership with the RG, we face the difficulty that there is no real discussion of the issue in Romans, unlike the Corinthian epistles (1 Cor 3:1–4:21; 9:1–27; 12:1–13:13; 2 Cor 2:12–7:4; 10:1–13:13). Nor does Paul, as we will see (§2.7, below), use the language of “imitation” in order to present himself as an exemplum for his converts (§1.1.2, above). This would have been an obvious point of comparison between Paul and Augustus. The problem is compounded by the fact that Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, did not found the church at Rome. This explains Paul's delicately phrased language of “mutuality” and “reciprocity” in Rom 1:11–13 (esp. 1:12: συμπαρακληθναι; ἐν ἀλλήλοις; ὑμν τε καὶ ἐμο) and 15:24 (θεάσασθαι ὑμς καὶ ὑϕ' ὑμν προπεμϕθναι ἐκε), even though Paul highlights his status as the apostle to the Gentiles (1:1, 5–6, 13b; 15:15–16). Paul unfolds the variegated ministry of the body of Christ (Rom 12:4–8), pointing to a diversity of leadership in the house churches: but even here a comparison with Nero's “body of state” is more easily made (Seneca, Clem. 1.4.1–1.5.2) than with the RG.Footnote ¹⁴⁸

However, there is a similarity of situation between Paul and Augustus at an unexpected level. Augustus distinguishes between his formal powers (potestas) and his influence (auctoritas) for a harmonious running of the state.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ To some degree, Paul's situation in writing to the Romans poses a similar conundrum. Paul has “apostolic authority” over the Gentile churches, being divinely appointed and affirmed by the “consensus” of the “pillar” apostles of Jerusalem (Rom 1:1, 5–6, 13b; 15:15–16; cf. Gal 1:15–16; 2:7–9), and has the “power of God” at his disposal through the gospel (Rom 1:16; 15:19). However, Paul cannot wield his authority insensitively over the Roman church because he is not its founder. How then does Paul establish consensus with the Roman believers regarding his projected visit and what type of leadership pattern emerges in this process? And how does it compare with the exemplum of Augustus in the RG?

First, like Augustus (§2.4, above), Paul has a strong geopolitical grasp of the Roman empire in his strategy of bringing the nations to the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). He has moved from Jerusalem (Rom 15:19b; Gal 2:1–10) to the Greek East, commencing with Asia (16:5), and from there traveling into Europe during his second and third missionary journeys (Macedonia: 15:26; Illyricum: 15:19; Achaia: 15:26). Currently, Paul is writing his epistle at the Isthmus, residing at Corinth (16:23; see 1 Cor 1:14), but also with patronage in nearby Cenchrea (Rom 16:1–2). Afterwards, Paul planned to travel from Corinth to Jerusalem with the collection for the poor saints (Rom 15:26, 31). Thus, having now traveled as a missionary across the Greek East in a circle from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum on the Adriatic coast (Rom 15:19b),Footnote ¹⁵⁰ Paul's intention was to move into the Latin West and visit the believers at Rome (1:10–13; 15:22a, 24b, 29, 32). His aim was to establish a mission to the most westerly point of the Roman empire in Europe (Spain: Rom 15:24a).Footnote ¹⁵¹ Although the “geopolitical” sweep is not as extensive as Augustus's catalogue (RG 25–33), it is no less impressive in its far-flung vision for the nations living in the provinces.

However, a clear difference in the conception of leadership emerges between Paul and Augustus. Augustus spared only those foreign peoples “whom (he) could safely pardon” (RG 3.2), either subduing them militarily (29–30) or by extending clementia to their officials and kings in diplomatic contexts (31–33). The princeps boasts about the result of these encounters (RG 32.3): “And while I have been leader (me principe; ἐπ' ἐμο ἡγεμόνος) very many other peoples have experienced the good faith (fidem; πίστεως) of the Roman people.”Footnote ¹⁵² The imperial iconography confirms the militarism of RG 29–30, emphasizing the military subjugation of the nations.Footnote ¹⁵³ Indeed, Paul himself may well have seen reliefs of bound captives during his visit to Pisidian Antioch.Footnote ¹⁵⁴

By contrast, Paul sought to win the nations to the “obedience of faith” for Christ (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως: Rom 1:5; 16:26). Whereas Augustus as Pontifex Maximus mediated between the gods and the Roman people (RG 7.3; 10.2), Paul made a priestly offering of the Gentiles in the service of the gospel of God (Rom 15:16). Christ himself was the God-given ἱλαστήριον that had propitiated the righteous demands of God's wrathful judgement, present and future, against sinners (Rom 1:18–3:20), irrespective of whether they were Jews or Gentiles (Rom 3:25; 10:12).Footnote ¹⁵⁵ Consequently, Paul jettisoned the Roman division between Greek and barbarian (Rom 1:14) since he was indebted to both groups (1:14b: ὀϕειλέτης εἰμί),Footnote ¹⁵⁶ owing them the debt of divine love (13:8b–10). In Paul's “geopolitical” organization of the Roman Empire for outreach to the nations, indebtedness to the love of Christ had become the dynamic for bringing about the obedience of the nations, as opposed to the militarism and diplomacy of the Roman ruler.

Second, in Rom 16:1–16 and 16:21–23 we gain insight into how Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, establishes “consensus,” to borrow “Augustan” language, among believers in the Greek East and in the Latin West.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ At the most fundamental level, God had already established unity (one body: Rom 12:4a, 5a; see 10:12; 16:17) through the incorporation of believers from different nations into the body of Christ at Rome (Rom 16:1–16a) and in the provinces (e.g., Achaia: 16:1–2, 21–23; Asia: 16:5b; elsewhere: 16:4b, 16b). Paul's “in Christ” and “in the Lord” language underscores the organic unity of the house churches in fellowship, ministry, and mission across the Roman empire (Rom 16:2, 3, 7–13, 22).

Paul uses a series of rhetorical strategies to facilitate interdependence and collegiality among the house churches of the Greek East and Latin West. His “kinship” (Rom 16:1: our sister; 16:8, 11, 21b: kinsmen; 16:13: a mother to me also; 16:14: brothers) and “household” language (16:5, 10b, 23a) establishes that believers now belong to a different family than the family of which Augustus was pater patriae. Beneficence within the house churches offers an alternative to the imperial networks of grace.Footnote ¹⁵⁸ However, this is not to be at the expense of socially prominent believers continuing to act responsibly as civic officials and benefactors within their own cities (Rom 16:23b). Traditional honorific motifs such as the “endangered” benefactor (Rom 16:4a) are echoed in Paul's description of the personal risk that Prisca and Aquila undertook on his behalf.Footnote ¹⁵⁹ Paul's expressions of affectionFootnote ¹⁶⁰ and his honorific rituals and accoladesFootnote ¹⁶¹ throughout Romans 16 provide the impetus to unity in visible and powerful ways. Last, the language of collegiality, in ministry and suffering,Footnote ¹⁶² has the same effect. This sense of cohesion established by Paul between the churches of the Latin West and Greek East would have provided further impetus for his mission to the nations across the Roman empire (Rom 15:23–24).Footnote ¹⁶³

2.7 The Achievement of Virtue

On two occasions in the RG (8.5; 34.2) Augustus is held up as an exemplum of virtue. Both of these texts have already been discussed (§1.1.2; §2.6, above). We have seen that Augustus had become the supreme exemplum of virtue for the future leaders of Rome. His four “cardinal” virtues—virtus, clementia, iustitia, and pietas—were awarded because of his meritorious action on behalf of the state. We have also seen that at various stages in the RG these same virtues are illustrated by what Augustus does in service of the state (e.g., virtus and clementia: §2.4, above; pietas: §2.5, above; iustitia: 2; 6.1; 10.1; 26.3). Last, precisely because Augustus as an exemplum embodied the republican virtues, he was able to establish consensus with the state, as much as the senate and Roman people had established consensus by recognizing Augustus's supremacy by the time of Actium.

In the case of Paul, however, it is clear that virtue is the preserve of the entire believing community in Christ. This stands in contrast to the RG where the virtues are attributed to Augustus as honorific accolades because he is the savior of the res publica and the benefactor of the world (34.2). Two examples will be sufficient. First, in regards to the Augustan virtue of iustitia (34.2: iustitiae; [δ]ικαιοσύνην), Paul states that through the righteous act of Christ (Rom 5:18b: δι ' ἑνὸς δικαιώματος), many will be made righteous (5:19b: δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί). As we have seen (note 152, above), Paul's use of “justification by faith” language unveils how God graciously summons the Jews and the nations into the body of Christ, whereas Augustus's sense of justice triggers the fides (faith) that drew the nations to Rome and to himself (RG 32.3). The Spirit, too, brings to fulfillment in the believer's life the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4a: τὸ δικαίωμα το νόμου). The righteousness operative in the life of the Christian community does not reinvigorate the nomistic righteousness of the old covenant (7:6b: οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος), but rather unleashes the dynamic newness of the Spirit (7:6b: ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος). Set free from the self-serving behavior that characterized Greco-Roman society, the Roman believers had become “instruments” and “slaves” of righteousness (Rom 6:13: ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τ θε; 6:18: ἐδουλώθητε τ δικαιοσύν). It is interesting that Paul avoids the language of “imitation” in Romans,Footnote ¹⁶⁴ opting instead for the idea of conformity to righteousness and to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29: συμμόρϕους τς εἰκόνος το υι῾ο αὐτο).Footnote ¹⁶⁵ Did the ubiquity of the Augustan exemplum motif at Rome (§1.1.2, above) cause Paul to speak of the dynamics of ethical transformation in a different way for Roman believers? This corporate understanding of conformity to “righteousness,” energized by the Spirit because of the obedience of Christ, is vastly different from the vision of justice centralized in the princeps in the RG.

Second, in regards to the Augustan virtue of clementia (RG 34.2: clement[iae]; ἐπείκειαν), Paul demonstrates in Romans that the Christian community was founded on the abounding mercy of God (ἐλεέω: Rom 9:15, 16, 18; 11:30–32; ε῎λεος: 9:23; 11:31; 15:9; οἰκτιρμός: 12:1). The welcome of Christ and the mercy of God had established a unity between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ (Rom 15:7–13) that transcended the Augustan consensus and gave believers the capacity to overcome internal divisions (Rom 14:1–15:6). However, divine mercy also translated into the extension of mercy to others as part of the variegated ministry of the body of Christ (Rom 12:8b: ὁ ἐλεν ἐν ἱλαρότητι). This social vision was expressed in meeting the needs of the saints (Rom 12:13a)—seen particularly in the Jerusalem collection for the poor (Rom 15:24–29)Footnote ¹⁶⁶—and in extending hospitality to strangers (Rom 12:13b). Contextually, this must have also included the extension of mercy to those who were the enemies of the Christian community (Rom 12:14–21). Paul's creation of small house churches, of mixed ethnicity and culture, which extended beneficence not only to their own communities but also to their enemies, creating thereby a network of mercy that criss-crossed the provinces of the Roman Empire, was an ethical and social novelty in the first century.