Doug Shaver

Hmm. I had to go back through that other thread to remind myself what got us started on this, since I'd quite forgotten.

Let me begin by noting that I've enjoyed this exercise. I consider the time I've spent on it to have been well spent.

I think you and I are interpreting Paul about the same way on this particular issue. And, as best I can recall from the days when I was an evangelical Christian, it is pretty much the evangelical party line.

I'm under the impression that many nonevangelical Christians would have a different take on it, but I don't know that for a fact.

I was a liberal Christian for about as long as I was an evangelical, but we just didn't talk about sin all that much, so I'm not sure what consensus there is, or if there is any, among liberal Christians. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and guess that they would fall into three groups (not necessarily well defined). One group would simply dismiss Paul's views on sin as mistaken and irrelevant to the modern world. Another would accept his authority but interpret him differently than you and I do. The third would agree with us -- sort of, anyway.

As for nonevangelicals who cannot be classified as liberals, I haven't the foggiest notion what they think the Bible teaches about sin.

What got me going in the first place was your equation of Paul's opinions with "what the Bible says." I don't think there is any significant subject on which all of the men who wrote the Bible were in agreement, except perhaps for two propositions: (1) There is a God, and (2) We should be doing whatever he wants us to do.

dog-on

I read it this way...


1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.


The bit in the italics is an interpolation.


It's not "obvious", because it simply does not belong.

sschlichter

I enjoyed it as well. If I recall, we started this because I stated a view of sin that I posited was consistent with these chapters. (I will have to go back to the post to see what baggage I added in my original statement - undoubtedly, I am guilty). then we discussed that people interpret them differently. I am sure that is true but it appears to me that the two of us have come up with similar interpretations. I think anyone who drops their baggage (from either side) will come up with a similar understanding on matters that were important to Paul. (regardless of whether they are important to the reader).

I am pretty confident that Catholic, Orthodox, and Conservative Proptestants would agree with the major themes. (someone will jump on that, I am sure). I think liberal Christans might concur on the perspicuity of it but tend toward your views on whether it is authoritative. (again, a correction will undoubtedly follow). I do not really know what a liberal Christian is, to be totally honest. The term probably means 3 or 4 different things.

Let me know if you want to keep going -13 more chapters

~Steve

sschlichter

That is not really the question of this thread.

dog-on

Yea, I am aware of that. It does somewhat change the reading, for a Christian, I suppose.

sschlichter

It would for me. if I thought it was a later interpolation, I would stop reading it. I do not and typically, those that do beleive it is are not referring to the first 15 or so verses in Romans anyway.

~Steve

storytime

At this point, is it ok to ask a few questions? I've been trying to follow your train of thought but find it difficult.

1. Who and why was Paul trying to convince that his gospel was true? I can't imagine the Jewish Paul trying to convince unlearned Gentiles of anything about his Jewish scriptures. Wouldn't it have been totally alien to any non-Jewish person? So who did Paul address in his letters? Jews living in Rome, or other brethren not accounted as Judaean in Rome but accounted as brethren in Israel?

2. Who were the dead that Jesus was resurrected from? Were the separated people from days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam considered as "the dead"? Were the Jews at Jerusalem considered as "the living"? Who was Jesus trying to save in describing the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Were these lost sheep considered as dead because they were separated from worship at Jerusalem and thus Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews?

I tend to think that separation in Jeroboam and his instituting worship in the high places (mountains?) then constituted "the dead" because the Temple of God was at Jerusalem. And Jeroboam told his people[of Israel] that they did not need to go to Jerusalem to worship their god.

sschlichter

I am not sure whom you are asking, but if me then here is how I would respond.

The Roman church at this point was some combination of Jews that accepted christ as fulfillment of Scripture and God-fearing Gentiles who were excited to find themselves all of a sudden on equal footing. (Romans either in the process of conversion or at least sympathetic - the ones that just got circumcised being the least excited ). Judaism was a legal religion and Acts refers to the reception of the God fearing gentiles as well as Jews to many of the cities Paul visits. There is evidence of Jewish conversions or at least sympathies in Roman history (Josephus suggested that Nero's wife was one such convert). I have heard estimations of 3% of the Roman population might have been in this category. (some even higher)

As far as Rome, their is evidence of the a Jewish population since 139 BC.

The only reference to the dead in this passage is Jesus' resurrection from the dead. I do not think the dead represent a group of people or a concept other than the concept of those that are separated from their bodies. i.e. those not alive. He is drawing on the universal experience of all men when referring to the dead by using the word that means dead.

the context makes it clear because it is this resurrection from being dead (an impossible task for a man) that is the reason that he is declared the Son of God. (IMO)

Salvation is of the Jews. The promise to Abraham (Gen 12, 15) was that God would bless all families through his descendant. It was re-iterated to David and re-iterated again here by Paul in v2,3. - a descendant of David according to the flesh as promised beforehand through his prophets. What was promised? A desendant? For what? to bless all nations. (Gen 3:15, Gen 12, Gen 15)

Christ, the Jew is the fulfillment of that promise according to Paul and he explains how in the next 13 chapters.

That is what Paul is referring to in v2 and 3. (IMO)

As far as lost sheep. If you are referring to Matt 10, then Jesus is referring to chronology. I.e. Lost sheep of Israel for now. Later the gentiles - as Paul has found out. He says this in the same passage (Matt 10:18).

~Steve

storytime

Thank you Steve. I left the questions open for you both and any others who might want to contribute.

ok, so now I have more questions.

Why would you think there was a Roman church at the time of Pauls writing? There may have been a Jewish synagogue in Rome, but an established Gentile church worshiping Jesus?

In the KJV, the last account of Paul is in his own hired house in Rome, waiting for audience with Caesar. While waiting, Jews made visits to Paul to hear his story. Some agreed with Paul and some did not. Nothing else is heard from Paul.

Matthew 11:5 says "the dead" were raised-up while Jesus was yet alive. Who then were the dead?

The decendant who received "the promise" as the one and only seed through Isaac, was called Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. There was no other seed and Jesus the Jew was blessed in his namesake Jacob(tribal head, forefather). All families of Abraham were blessed according to the promise God made to Abraham. (OT) Requirements for blessing stipulated in circumcision. No circumcision no blessing. Jesus changed nothing concerning circumcision and law of Moses. Nor did he say that it was his purpose to do so. No, his purpose was to divide the Jews, obtain a following, and cast out the Pharisees whom he called children of the devil. "And if I cast out Satan by the word of God, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you". (Matthew)

Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of the law as the llaw did not need a man to support it. However, as a rabbi priest, Jesus in his obligatory duty may be seen as fulfilling his role in that position, as he said to John the Baptist, "it hath come unto us to fulfill all these things". Both were acting as priests. Both were firstborn sons, a Jewish tradition or a Levitical mandate? :huh:

sschlichter

There was multiple synagogues. Outside of Judea and Alexandria, Rome was liklely the largest concentration of Jews at this time.

Their was an established church. You can gather that from this letter. It met in at least five different homes 1) Priscilla and Aquilla, 2) family of Aristobolus, 3) the family of Narcissus, 4) an apparent backelor pad occupied by Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas and hermas and 5) a home belonging to Philogus, Julia, Nereus, his sister, and Olympus. Many of these are greek names and no reason to assume they are jewish. Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome. they must have been established enough to be considered a faction of some sort.

I am not sure of your point. Let's look at it. end of Acts 28

(Acts 28:21) They replied, "We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or said anything bad about you.
(Acts 28:22) But we would like to hear from you what you think, for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it."

The Jews are aware of the Christian sect and want to hear from Paul directly

(Acts 28:23) They set a day to meet with him, and they came to him where he was staying in even greater numbers. From morning until evening he explained things to them, testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets.
(Acts 28:24) Some were convinced by what he said, but others refused to believe.(Acts 28:25) So they began to leave, unable to agree among themselves, after Paul made one last statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah
(Acts 28:26) when he said,
' Go to this people and say,
" You will keep on hearing, but will never understand,
and you will keep on looking, but will never perceive.
(Acts 28:27) For the heart of this people has become dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have closed their eyes,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them." '

Paul makes a compelling argument from Scripture.

(Acts 28:28) "Therefore be advised that this salvation from God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!"
(Acts 28:30) Paul lived there two whole years in his own rented quarters and welcomed all who came to him,
(Acts 28:31) proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with complete boldness and without restriction.

Paul advises them that they should be aware that salvation has been sent to the Gentiles. He welcomed ALL (Jews, gentiles, pagans, Romans) who came to him for the next 2 years.


the blind see, the lame walk, the dead raised. He is providing John the Baptist encouragement and reassurance that Jesus is in fact the Messiah by showing his fulfillment of OT prophecy One example of the dead raised is just before this in Matt 9:18-26.

then why did God make the same promise to Jacob:

(Gen 28:14) Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, east, north, and south. All the families of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using your name and that of your descendants.

and why did God make this promise to his son Judah:

(Gen 49:10) The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs;
the nations will obey him.

circumcison was a sign of the covemant, not the terms of the requirement. Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6 by beleiving God. this is before circumcision.

(Gen 17:11) You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder of the covenant between me and you.

John fulfilled a specific prophecy.

Jesus fulfilled the law in that the offense of breaking the law exacted a penalty (death) and Jesus fulfilled this requirement. The law was present to convict and the judgment for all men breaking the law was guilty. the penalty is death and Jesus paid the price. The law fulfilled, not ended. Being only a perfect man, he could have only died for one other. Being God, his sacrifice was for all.

(Rom 3:25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

~Steve