This book is a collection of essays that Seyoon Kim, perhaps the leading South Korean New Testament scholar in the world, published as a sort of addendum to his new 1–2 Thessalonians commentary now published in the Word Biblical Commentary series. As an essay collection rather than a focused monograph, there is no single thesis that encapsulates the overall argument of the book. However, the title accurately captures the theme of the book as a whole: the gospel that Paul presented to the church in Thessalonica is the same gospel he delivered in his other epistles. For Kim, the letters to the Thessalonian Christians must be read in close concert with Romans, the Corinthian Correspondence, Galatians, and Philemon. Although he references the other Pauline letters, citations to the disputed letters are secondary, supporting rather than generating a line of argument.

The lack of unifying thesis, and the scope of topics covered in the book presents a challenge to evaluating Paul’s Gospel for the Thessalonians and Other Churches. The cornerstone essay is likely the second of the book, “Jesus the Son of God as the Gospel (1 Thess 1:9–10 and Rom 1:3–4).” In twenty-two tightly argued pages, Kim unfolds Paul’s description of God’s work in the Thessalonians and his summary of redemptive history. Paul, Kim argues, has loaded that phrase to present, in nuce, a short and pithy description of his gospel, holding together many of the important themes that appear throughout Paul’s letters: obedience, judgment, salvation, covenant faithfulness. As the Son of God, Jesus presents these realities to those who believe in him. With a particularly sharp turn of phrase, Kim writes, “Jesus Christ the Son of God is the embodiment of God’s covenant faithfulness or his love (Rom 5:8–10; 8:32; cf. also Gal 2:20). Thus Jesus Christ the Son of God spells the ‘gospel,’ the good news of God’s salvation for the whole world” (p. 65). This essay and the fourth essay, “Jesus’ Son of Man Sayings as a Basis of Paul’s Gospel of Jesus the Son of God (1 Thess 1:9—10 and Rom 1:3–4)” make up a single study that chart a line of continuity from Jesus to Paul. Throughout the book Kim references these two, and so they form a backbone to the rest of what he argues.

Kim has produced a remarkable piece of work, as the essays are consistently strong throughout. If this volume complements, rather than simply repeats, the commentary, then Kim has left us with a significant and worthwhile addition to literature on the Thessalonian correspondence. One notable strength is Kim’s concern for the Christian life. It does not seem as if he is writing simply for the academy. For example, he concludes one of his essays with what amounts to a call to trust in Christ: “Without [Christ], human beings are left to their own finite resources (humanism), no matter whether they are atheists (since they have no God but only themselves the finite beings) or pantheists (since they have no God extra nos) or deists (since they have no God who comes pro nobis)” (p. 66). Throughout the book, Kim’s piety peeks through his scholarship (e.g., p. 321) which is very refreshing in a field that often underplays that.

I have one minor quibble about the book and one more substantial criticism of Kim’s interpretation of Paul. The minor quibble concerns the order in which this volume and the complementary commentary were scheduled for publication. Throughout the book, Kim refers the reader to his then unpublished commentary. Perhaps there is some logic to publishing these essays first, but the inability to read the commentary alongside the book proved frustrating at times.

The substantial criticism is directed towards Kim’s rearticulation of justification. Following his earlier volume on justification, Kim follows Käsemann’s understanding of justification as a Herrschaftswechsel, a lordship transfer, a shift that arguably undermines the traditional Protestant forensic understanding (pp. 53, 282). This makes justification a “present process” (p. 283 n. 8) rather than a declared reality. While Paul’s use of the δικ– word group is complex and certain notions of forensic righteousness can simplify Paul’s careful thought, the forensic interpretation is not without exegetical warrant (e.g., Rom 5:1, et al.). Though Kim mentions this (see p. 93), he avoids some of the exegetical implications by conflating Pauline language, such that justification, reconciliation, and sanctification all become parallel, even synonymous, terms for God’s work in Jesus Christ (pp. 93, 126–28). It is not clear, though, how Kim’s suggestion to identify these blessings rather than to hold them as distinct though related realities satisfies the text. If Kim is right, then Paul’s letters lose much of their richness, and he becomes a rather monochromatic thinker. In addition, there is no compelling reason to read Paul’s letters in this way. The text does not necessitate it, which is arguably why most biblical interpreters through the centuries have not conflated these concepts.

Although the price will be prohibitive to most individuals, anyone doing work in the Thessalonian correspondence or Pauline studies more broadly should seek to incorporate Kim’s insights. Even preachers will find much of the material stimulating as they prepare sermons. Although many will find themselves in disagreement with Kim’s understanding of justification, they should not let that deter them from learning a great deal from such a productive and provocative thinker.

---