Doug Shaver

Some preliminary comments . . . .

I'm using the KJV because, for the time being, it is the only translation to which I have convenient access. I will try to avoid commenting on passages for which disputed issues of translation or manuscript variants could be crucial, insofar as I am aware of such issues.

For the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that the referenced passages are authentic in their entirety, containing no scribal interpolations. I would not attempt to defend that assumption if challenged on it. Right now, though, I don't have time to address any concerns about authenticity, and so I'll just proceed as if there were no question about it.

Salutation (1:1-7)

This is an essay composed as if it were a letter from Paul to the Christians living in the imperial capital. Whether the original version of this document was ever actually delivered to Rome and read by anyone there is not, I think, crucial to our understanding of Paul's thinking. We may assume that the essay records his actual thougts, regardless of to whom they were actually addressed.

Paul identifies himself as an apostle The primary meaning of the Greek original (apostolos) seems to be "delegate," somebody specifically authorized, or commissioned, by someone else to act on their behalf. Paul says he got his apostolic commission from God. So far as we can tell, either from the immediate context or from anywhere else in the surviving Pauline corpus, he expected his readers to take his word for that. There is no hint anywhere of any means by which anybody could have verified Paul's apostolic credentials. He said he was sent by God, and you believe him or not; that was up to you.

The purpose of his commission seems to be expressed in verse 1: "separated unto the gospel of God." God has a message (a "good message" -- euaggelion) and selected Paul to deliver it. Paul says the message was not entirely unanticipated: it was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." Presumably, Paul and the other apostles were divinely enabled to see that promise when they read the scriptures, because apparently no one before them had seen it in those writings.

So, Paul has a message from God, and the message has something to do with "his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." My interpretation: This is not a reference to an itinerant Galilean preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth. I believe Paul was referring to a spiritual being inhabiting an immaterial realm located somewhere above the sensory world.

Under this interpretation, the meaning of "seed of David according to the flesh" is not obvious. It seems to be Paul's cryptic way of saying that at some point in his existence, Christ took on certain characteristics of life in the fleshly realm, i.e. the world of mortal human existence. Otherwise, he could not have experienced death.

Having just said that Christ is God's son, Paul seems to repeat himself -- "declared to be the Son of God with power" -- but he is adding some information. Christ's filial relationship with God required some action on God's part to take effect. He was not God's son until God declared him so.

Interlude (1:8-15)

Paul rather verbosely expresses his hope to visit Rome as soon as he is able to.

The gospel (1:16-....)

Paul then gets to his message. He begins by noting that he is "not ashamed" of it. He does not explain to the Romans why anybody would be ashamed of it. Whatever, he goes on to explain that the message is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." I take this to mean that the message saves people who believe it when they hear it. This is expanded upon in the next verse: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

He then presents his theory of skeptical depravity:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

In other words, Paul is telling people things that God wants them to know, and because Paul's words are God's words, there can be no justification for doubting them, because all righteous people just know when someone is telling them the truth about God.

He elaborates a bit on this through the remainder of Chapter 1, cataloguing some of the consequences that befall people who disagree with people like himself, whom God has chosen to be his messengers.

I think the next two chapters can wait until we digest this one.

sschlichter

thanks Doug, please give me some time to digest.

sschlichter

Ok, I like the NET version. I will switch to the KJV if you think it will be easier to use the same one.

I agree that this is a separate issue.

I believe there is a central theme in these passages and that setting presuppositions aside, (both orthodox and otherwise) people will come to similar conclusions as to what the author either believes or is trying to convey in this central theme. I will attempt to avoid any disagreements I might have that are not relevant to that theme.(this is hard for Christians )

I was with you up to here. Paul believes he was commissioned with a message and Paul believes that message was promised in the Scriptures. I am assuming you agree that he is referring to the books of the OT.

Can we can leave it at that. I do not see any reason to presume others saw it or not. I will not presume they did either. I do take it that Paul seems to think this message he is delivering was promised in “the Holy Scriptures”.

He has not delivered the message yet. I cannot see how you can form this interpretation especially when it made the rest of the sentence unclear.
Here is what I see Paul says about the message so far…

• It was promised by God beforehand
• Concerns his (God’s) son (uiou)
• He was a descendant of David according to the flesh
• He was appointed the son of God in power by resurrection from the dead
• He is Jesus Christ

I am trying not to assume anything here about what Paul refers to as Jesus. Paul is saying that our (him and his audience) Lord Jesus Christ, promised beforehand in Scripture, seed of David in the flesh, and declared son of God in power by his resurrection of the dead.

You seem to be saying that Paul is referring to a spiritual being but later state that this being came into mortal existence and experienced death. If this is a correct assessment, would you agree that Paul believes the being who became mortal has resurrected and is now alive (now being at the time of the letter) (alive being in some undeclared capacity – in Spirit, in flesh, both – not specified as of yet).

Here are some extrapolations I would also make. You tell me which are not permissible to you.

Paul believed David was a Jewish King.
This message is referring to a descendant of that King.
Jesus Christ has become his moniker known to both Paul and his audience.

Rom 1:5-8
Through Jesus, Paul believes he has received grace and the commission to bring about the obedience of faith to the gentiles of which his audience is among them in Rome.

Rom 1:9 Paul believes he serves God by preaching this good news of his Son (can we assume this is the same son as 1:4?)

Rom 1:13 Je has experienced some reception of his message among the gentiles.

as it is written is referring to Habakkuk 2:4.

Paul believes that the message is a power for salvation for those that (believe, trust, commit to) first to Jews and also to Gentiles.

Salvation from what? Paul does not say as of yet.

This is as far as I could get. How close are we? Please point any unsafe assumptions I am making or anything I have added to the text in your opinion? I need some more time for the rest.

~Steve

andrewcriddle

Wherever Paul locates Christ, he seems to be saying that the events concerning Christ, which the scriptures allegedly promised would happen sometime in the future, have now finally happened. IE wherever the death of Christ is located it seems to be a more or less recent event.

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter

Andrew,

While I agree, I am trying to disassociate myself from my own presuppositions in this exercise. (assuming that is possible). I see the promise and the fulfillment. I see past tense (who 'was' appointed, we 'have' received) but where do you get the sense of nearness of the events to Paul from this passage. Outside of history, of course.

~Steve

andrewcriddle

Hi Steve

Sorry I should have been clearer.

I meant near to Paul in the sense of after the period in which the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible were supposedly written eg after Alexandre the Great. Not necessarily near in the sense of a few years before Paul wrote Romans but in recent (post Hebrew Bible) times not in the distant past.

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter

I see. He makes it clear that the fulfillment was after the promise delivered in Scripture.

sschlichter

18-23
The righteousness of God is revealed in the good news (v17), CONJUNCTION the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.

God’s invisible attributes are made plain to ‘those who suppress the truth’. They ignored all that is clear about God and became futile in their thinking.

They exchanged God for idols
They exchanged wisdom for futility

24-31
So, God let them have their way and gave them over to their desires. They exchange the truth for a lie. God gave them up to a litany of frowned upon activities. The phrase God gave them over appears in 24, 26, 28. I think this is intentional. God gave them what they wanted or he removed his influence from them at their request.

32
Paul confirms that he believes they knew they were wrong and deserved to die, but did them anyway and encouraged others to do so as well.


I think that is it for chapter 1. How do we differ? Again, not in whether we agree or not but in what Paul is communicating to those in Rome he is writing to.

~Steve

Doug Shaver

I like almost anything better than King James.

I did some googling just now and found out that there is a free download of the NET available. I'll get it and have a look.

Yes. I presume that whenever first- or second-century Christians said "scriptures," they meant books that comprise what Christians of later centuries called the Old Testament.

I mentioned it only because I don't know yet whether it's going to become relevant but thought it might be. If it turns out not to be, I won't be bringing it up again.

Paul ostensibly is writing to a church that has existed for several years. Not everything he tells them about Jesus is going to be new information. When I was a Christian, I listened to plenty of sermons that told me nothing I hadn't already heard many times.

Do you mean it makes the rest of my interpretation unclear, or that if my interpretation is correct, it would make the rest of Paul's own sentence unclear?

I'm OK with the first four, though they seem less like interpretations than just restatements.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fifth. Is Paul just informing his readers what God's son's name is?

It's hard for me to make myself clear on this, because I'm not really clear myself yet on the specifics of Paul's thinking. He was clearly influenced by the Hellenistic philosophy of his day, but that philosophy itself was pretty diverse. It is also not at all well documented for the first century, and so anybody trying to get into Paul's head is forced to do a lot guesswork.

Since Paul was a Jew, I assume he was committed to monotheism. It's my understanding, though, that Hellenistic Jews found themselves some intellectual wiggle room that let them believe in spiritual beings that were god-like, or in some sense were gods, but were OK to believe in because they were not THE God. These gods, along with assorted other kinds of spiritual entities, inhabited a portion of the universe separate from but somehow connected to the physical world. This is where Plato's forms, or Aristotle's essenses, or something like them, had their existence. Thus the physical world depended in some way on the spiritual realm, and all the entities resident therein, not only for its mere existence but also for the particulars of its existence. That is to say, everything "down here" was an embodiment, or reflection, or some kind of image, of something "up there" -- but nothing up there could be the same thing as anything down here. Everyting down here was imperfect, evil, and corrupted. The heavens were perfect and uncorrupted, and so necessarily was everything in them.

But there was a region in between, the sublunar sphere. Being above the material world, disembodied entities could live there and be free of the constraints of material existence. Being right next to the material world, they could still take on some of its evil characteristics.

I think this is what Paul believed the savior did. He descended to the sublunar sphere where he acquired some human essences. He was crucified by evil demons ("rulers of this age"), then was resurrected and, being now rid of all human essences, returned to God's abode in the highest heaven.

Yes, Paul believed that David was a Jewish king, successor of Saul and father of Solomon.

No, Paul's message was not about a descendent of that king, in any sense in which a modern person would likely construe that phrase. Hellenistic thinking was totally foreign to the modern mind. The universe that Paul and his contemporaries thought they inhabited was nothing like the universe that we think we inhabit.

If Davidic ancestry was significant for any reason, then it could have existed as a Platonic form. Any godlike being could take on that form and thereby become, for any purpose that mattered to the Almighty God, a descendent of David.

Yes, the one who did this was known as Jesus Christ to Paul and his audience.

It looks that way to me.

He knows that his readers already have had the general idea. He's setting them up for a more detailed exposition.

I don't see any points of disagreement yet that should cause a serious problem. We're leading up to Paul's exposition on sin, which I take to be the real point of this exercise. I'm not sure that the historical existence of Paul's Christ will make a difference to how we should interpret what he has to say on that subject.

You posted your second response before I could begin this. I'll reply to it in due course.

Elijah

Sorry to intrude in the conversation, but I see this sub lunar realm stuff a lot around here and just wanted to comment.

I find it hard to believe that Paul would have some in-between sub lunar realm in his ideology. I think he was a straight up dualist (heaven/earth) with an unknowable creator type Jew. That sub lunar realm stuff would be considered a pagan concept I think (from Greek religion not Greek metaphysics like Plato’s forms). Paul like most Hellenized Jews had an understanding of the other side of the universe as constant and unchanging. That’s why they believed in a physical resurrection because there was no other dimension where you could live after you died or realm for the gods to live in.