(pp. 24-26)
It's wonderful to take Christ, as Moo does, as the "theological starting point" of Romans. His twofold reason is not only the content of Romans, including the beginning verses, but also the fact that the Roman Christians could start there too. This is actually more helpful than a jaded reader might initially think. What if a commentator had taken "Existence" as a starting point?
Similarly, it's helpful to take "salvation history" as a framework for what Paul says in Romans, what Moo does. In a little, after reminding us of the possible vagueness of words like the "center" of Paul's theology, and even the word "theme," as assumptive without reason of only one theme, he'll get to his candidate.
The many far-reaching theological statements on p. 26 sound like conclusions to be considered after reading the letter, and so, with Cranfield's proper warning we noticed earlier, I think they should be just "duly noted" for now.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Romans 1:16-17 timeframe
Romans 1:16-17 is for April 25 - May 5 (- p. 90 in the Moo commentary on Romans).
Monday, April 22, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 9 of 14)
(pp. 22-23)
The Muratorian canon on Romans, in saying "[Paul] wrote at greater depth [than in Corinthians or Galatians], concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ," (p. 22), warms right up to the theme of Romans.
Only second best is Moo's summary of Romans themes: "the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death." Second best, I think, because to be all up-to-speed on all these themes, without Christ Himself, would be the worst thing, like gaining the whole world, and forfeiting oneself. Conversely, having Christ Himself, all these things have or will be given to us, in God's time.
The Muratorian canon on Romans, in saying "[Paul] wrote at greater depth [than in Corinthians or Galatians], concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ," (p. 22), warms right up to the theme of Romans.
Only second best is Moo's summary of Romans themes: "the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death." Second best, I think, because to be all up-to-speed on all these themes, without Christ Himself, would be the worst thing, like gaining the whole world, and forfeiting oneself. Conversely, having Christ Himself, all these things have or will be given to us, in God's time.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 8 of 14)
(pp. 19-21)
One of the benefits of these pages in which the author discusses theories of why Paul wrote Romans to the Romans, besides the fact that we get all these references to the authors who have said this and that, is the carefulness with which the author deals with others' positions.
He's "walking on eggshells" here, trying to appeal to readers of his commentary who as scholars are aware of the need to consider what others say. So here, professor Moo is gently showing us that positions that discount Paul's theological reasons (do they all seem to derive from the F.C. Baur writing?) are "going too far." The last sentence on p. 21 is the best: "The legitimate desire to pin down as precisely as possible the historical background and purpose of the letter should not obscure the degree to which Romans deals with theological issues raised by the nature of God's revelation itself" (pp. 21-22).
One of the benefits of these pages in which the author discusses theories of why Paul wrote Romans to the Romans, besides the fact that we get all these references to the authors who have said this and that, is the carefulness with which the author deals with others' positions.
He's "walking on eggshells" here, trying to appeal to readers of his commentary who as scholars are aware of the need to consider what others say. So here, professor Moo is gently showing us that positions that discount Paul's theological reasons (do they all seem to derive from the F.C. Baur writing?) are "going too far." The last sentence on p. 21 is the best: "The legitimate desire to pin down as precisely as possible the historical background and purpose of the letter should not obscure the degree to which Romans deals with theological issues raised by the nature of God's revelation itself" (pp. 21-22).
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 7 of 14)
(pp. 16-18)
One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy. There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.
But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.
However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans? "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc. Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them? It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.
One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy. There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.
But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.
However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans? "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc. Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them? It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 6 of 14)
(pp. 14-15)
Cranfield in the first few pages of his introduction to his commentary on Romans cautions against making conclusions for the reader, before the reader has gone through the book with him. The caution is well-taken, and here we should read our author with a grain of salt, remembering that he has gone through his research, and is ever-so-tempted by thrill of discovery perhaps, to blurt things out. "The relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel" indeed!
What else, besides adding to this list, or taking away from it, and substituting other things to it, can a comment on the nature of the book do? Well, it depends on what the book is about. Is Romans about ... concepts? The relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between law and gospel are, both ... concepts!
To the extent that we think we're going to be dealing with concepts alone, we forget our personal God.
Cranfield in the first few pages of his introduction to his commentary on Romans cautions against making conclusions for the reader, before the reader has gone through the book with him. The caution is well-taken, and here we should read our author with a grain of salt, remembering that he has gone through his research, and is ever-so-tempted by thrill of discovery perhaps, to blurt things out. "The relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel" indeed!
What else, besides adding to this list, or taking away from it, and substituting other things to it, can a comment on the nature of the book do? Well, it depends on what the book is about. Is Romans about ... concepts? The relationship between Jew and Gentile, and the relationship between law and gospel are, both ... concepts!
To the extent that we think we're going to be dealing with concepts alone, we forget our personal God.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 5 of 14)
(pp. 11-13)
If adducing the audience depends only on the meaning of specific portions of the text of Romans that addresses the audience directly, a whole class of evidence based on content is ignored.
For example, some weight should be given, in Romans 1, besides vv.5-6 which are discussed, to "holy Scriptures" and "prophets" in 1:2, which are not discussed. The most natural understanding of these two references in 1:2 is that Paul is speaking to people who know both what these things are, and that they are sources of God's announcements beforehand. If he we speaking to the minority portion of his audience, would he have opened with these assertions, which are stated as if already accepted?
If adducing the audience depends only on the meaning of specific portions of the text of Romans that addresses the audience directly, a whole class of evidence based on content is ignored.
For example, some weight should be given, in Romans 1, besides vv.5-6 which are discussed, to "holy Scriptures" and "prophets" in 1:2, which are not discussed. The most natural understanding of these two references in 1:2 is that Paul is speaking to people who know both what these things are, and that they are sources of God's announcements beforehand. If he we speaking to the minority portion of his audience, would he have opened with these assertions, which are stated as if already accepted?
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 4 of 14)
(pp. 9-10)
To read this section for the first time is like listening to discussion about an issue that must be important for some otherwise unknown reason to us readers. What is the importance behind just exactly the proportion of Gentile converts to Jewish converts in Rome? It's one of those issues that somebody, some people, are making much of, elsewhere, and the author is painstakingly keeping us out of that discussion, knowing that the audience includes some heavy investors in one or other of the possible conclusions.
This happens quite a bit, doesn't it? There is a natural variety in the language of address to subgroups, in a group letter. To call such things "paradox" and "mixed signals" is the classic mountain of Mishnah on the beanhill of Torah.
To read this section for the first time is like listening to discussion about an issue that must be important for some otherwise unknown reason to us readers. What is the importance behind just exactly the proportion of Gentile converts to Jewish converts in Rome? It's one of those issues that somebody, some people, are making much of, elsewhere, and the author is painstakingly keeping us out of that discussion, knowing that the audience includes some heavy investors in one or other of the possible conclusions.
This happens quite a bit, doesn't it? There is a natural variety in the language of address to subgroups, in a group letter. To call such things "paradox" and "mixed signals" is the classic mountain of Mishnah on the beanhill of Torah.
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 3 of 14)
(pp. 6-8)
The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly. The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!
Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek. It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion. Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words. A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.
The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly. The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!
Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek. It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion. Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words. A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 2 of 14)
(pp. 4-5)
It is impossible not to notice how well this introductory material is divided between text and footnote. If we want to look up the exact sources for various primary data, whether Suetonius or Philo, we can see that the writer has found them and documented them for us. How important is the make up, percentage-wise, of those to whom Paul writes Romans, between Jews and Gentiles?
From the letter itself, with its detailed Scriptural argument and quotation, the recipients of the letter could hardly have been unaware of the authoritative Old Testament from which Paul quotes so much. The detailed timing arguments in chapter 4 of his letter, not to mention the classic one-of-a-kind marker of Jewish piety, their own Scriptures being their own best critic, makes Paul's remarks in Romans 2 and 9-11 earmarked for his fellow Jews.
It is impossible not to notice how well this introductory material is divided between text and footnote. If we want to look up the exact sources for various primary data, whether Suetonius or Philo, we can see that the writer has found them and documented them for us. How important is the make up, percentage-wise, of those to whom Paul writes Romans, between Jews and Gentiles?
From the letter itself, with its detailed Scriptural argument and quotation, the recipients of the letter could hardly have been unaware of the authoritative Old Testament from which Paul quotes so much. The detailed timing arguments in chapter 4 of his letter, not to mention the classic one-of-a-kind marker of Jewish piety, their own Scriptures being their own best critic, makes Paul's remarks in Romans 2 and 9-11 earmarked for his fellow Jews.
Monday, April 01, 2013
Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 1 of 14)
(pp. 1-3)
Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)
The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe: gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context. Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?
The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology." What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context. It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute. In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z. Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it. A different person combines and selects differently.
Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2).
Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)
The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe: gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context. Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?
The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology." What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context. It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute. In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z. Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it. A different person combines and selects differently.
Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2).
Monday, March 25, 2013
What is it like to read Romans at Doug Moo's rate?
If we're preparing to read Romans along with Doug Moo's commentary, at Doug Moo's rate of discussion spread over a year (about 18 pp. / week), then here are some broad dates of progress, and thus dates of discussion here! The percentages are the changes in Moo's rate compared to a constant reading rate. (If, on the other hand, you're regular-schedule-driven, after this is a sample 15 week semester schedule for reading).
Introduction - April 1 - 14
Romans 1 - April 15 - May 19 (34% more time)
Romans 2 - May 20 - June 8 (24% less time)
Romans 3 - June 9 - July 8 (50% more time)
Romans 4 - July 9 - July 22 (18% less time)
Romans 5 - July 23 - August 14 (21% more time)
Romans 6 - August 15 - Sept 7 (20% more time)
Romans 7 - Sept 8 - Sept 29 (31% less time)
Romans 8 - Sept 30 - Oct 30 (16% less time)
Romans 9 - Oct 31 - Dec 1 (88% more time)
Romans 10 - Dec 2 - Dec 16 (12% less time)
Romans 11 - Dec 17 - Jan 15 (3% more time)
Romans 12 - Jan 16 - Feb 1 (same time)
Romans 13 - Feb 2 - Feb 15 (27% more time)
Romans 14 - Feb 16 - Mar 1 (26% less time)
Romans 15 - Mar 2 - Mar 20 (30% less time)
Romans 16 - Mar 21 - Mar 31 (48% less time)
or, in a semester,
Week 1 - Introducton; Rm 1:1-15
Week 2 - Rm 1:16-32
Week 3 - Rm 2:1 - 29
Week 4 - Rm 3:1-31
Week 5 - Rm 4:1 - 5:11
Week 6 - Rm 5:12 - 6:7
Week 7 - Rm 6:8 - 7:12
Week 8 - Rm 7:13 - 8:17
Week 9 - Rm 8:17 - 9:5
Week 10 - Rm 9:6-33
Week 11 - Rm 10:1 - 11:10
Week 12 - Rm 11:11 - 12:2
Week 13 - Rm 12:3 - 13:10
Week 14 - Rm 13:11 - 15:6
Week 15: Rm 15:7 - 16:27
Introduction - April 1 - 14
Romans 1 - April 15 - May 19 (34% more time)
Romans 2 - May 20 - June 8 (24% less time)
Romans 3 - June 9 - July 8 (50% more time)
Romans 4 - July 9 - July 22 (18% less time)
Romans 5 - July 23 - August 14 (21% more time)
Romans 6 - August 15 - Sept 7 (20% more time)
Romans 7 - Sept 8 - Sept 29 (31% less time)
Romans 8 - Sept 30 - Oct 30 (16% less time)
Romans 9 - Oct 31 - Dec 1 (88% more time)
Romans 10 - Dec 2 - Dec 16 (12% less time)
Romans 11 - Dec 17 - Jan 15 (3% more time)
Romans 12 - Jan 16 - Feb 1 (same time)
Romans 13 - Feb 2 - Feb 15 (27% more time)
Romans 14 - Feb 16 - Mar 1 (26% less time)
Romans 15 - Mar 2 - Mar 20 (30% less time)
Romans 16 - Mar 21 - Mar 31 (48% less time)
or, in a semester,
Week 1 - Introducton; Rm 1:1-15
Week 2 - Rm 1:16-32
Week 3 - Rm 2:1 - 29
Week 4 - Rm 3:1-31
Week 5 - Rm 4:1 - 5:11
Week 6 - Rm 5:12 - 6:7
Week 7 - Rm 6:8 - 7:12
Week 8 - Rm 7:13 - 8:17
Week 9 - Rm 8:17 - 9:5
Week 10 - Rm 9:6-33
Week 11 - Rm 10:1 - 11:10
Week 12 - Rm 11:11 - 12:2
Week 13 - Rm 12:3 - 13:10
Week 14 - Rm 13:11 - 15:6
Week 15: Rm 15:7 - 16:27
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New Year: 1 Cor 6-9 for Dec 2
The so-called distinction between doctrine and practice is not here in 1 Corinthians 6-9. One of the most neglected parts of eschatology (6:2) is used to rebuke a behavior issue, that of the use of the Roman courts among them.
In one of the ironies of context, the intensely famous use of 1 Cor 6:9-11 to distinguish between church members is proven by its context to be a misuse. Paul is listing people outside the church, in order to show them that they (6:3) are not to consider outsiders as arbiters of righteousness.
In one of the ironies of context, the intensely famous use of 1 Cor 6:9-11 to distinguish between church members is proven by its context to be a misuse. Paul is listing people outside the church, in order to show them that they (6:3) are not to consider outsiders as arbiters of righteousness.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
New Year: 1 Cor 1-5 for Dec 1
These chapters immediately show that Paul's thinking is not limited to the subjects of the treatise-like letter to the Romans. It's not just that Paul addresses very understandable practical problems, almost right off (1:10ff) in 1 Corinthians. The theology of Paul is significantly increased by 1 Corinthians. Reading in canonical order helps see that!
For example, the whole theme of nullifying (1:28), and its relationship to God's calling of the "things that are not...." Could we have guessed this from Romans? The closest parallel might be the idea that all the world is accountable to God, in Romans 3, or even better, the verse that formed the idea for the title of my blog, Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. Boasting is nullified. But nullification directed toward not an attitude but an "existent" thing (1:28) and its relationship to what the makeup of the called Christian body is? That's new.
Some things are wonderful elaborations of the thoughts that also occur in Romans. At the end of 1 Cor 3, there is a great elaboration of Romans 8's "will he not with Him freely give us all things?" in Paul's very memorable "all things are yours...."
For example, the whole theme of nullifying (1:28), and its relationship to God's calling of the "things that are not...." Could we have guessed this from Romans? The closest parallel might be the idea that all the world is accountable to God, in Romans 3, or even better, the verse that formed the idea for the title of my blog, Romans 3:27. Boasting is excluded. Boasting is nullified. But nullification directed toward not an attitude but an "existent" thing (1:28) and its relationship to what the makeup of the called Christian body is? That's new.
Some things are wonderful elaborations of the thoughts that also occur in Romans. At the end of 1 Cor 3, there is a great elaboration of Romans 8's "will he not with Him freely give us all things?" in Paul's very memorable "all things are yours...."
Friday, December 16, 2011
New Year: Rm 14-16 for Nov 30
Romans is very unusually broad in its ethical section compared to the many letters (e.g. to the Corinthians and Thessalonians) in which Paul addresses specific problems. Here (15:14) much less so.
This has seldom been taken into account, so that the overarching nature of his approach to the Christian life in chapters 12ff. has been minimized. The things that Paul emphasizes ethically in these chapters should be considered as foundational to the Christian life as his doctrine in chapters 1-11.
For example, just as the first imperative in the doctrinal section to the Romans was for them to consider themselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (6:11), being alive to God is his first principle behind ethics in 12:1. 6:13 moves to 12:1, as though the whole middle of the letter was needed to support the subject!
Having related the "vertical" aspects of our Christian life (13:14) to the "horizontal" (13:10-13), Paul continues in chapter 14 with the horizontal, which amounts to the building up of one another (14:19). In yet another defiance of Hume's rule that we cannot derive "ought" from "is," Paul says "for even Christ did not please Himself ..." (15:3), and to "accept one another" (15:7), because Christ became a servant of Jew and Gentile (15:8-9). Having recently gone through Acts, we can see how clearly God answered Paul's prayers of 15:31, and his proleptic statement of 16:26. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."
This has seldom been taken into account, so that the overarching nature of his approach to the Christian life in chapters 12ff. has been minimized. The things that Paul emphasizes ethically in these chapters should be considered as foundational to the Christian life as his doctrine in chapters 1-11.
For example, just as the first imperative in the doctrinal section to the Romans was for them to consider themselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (6:11), being alive to God is his first principle behind ethics in 12:1. 6:13 moves to 12:1, as though the whole middle of the letter was needed to support the subject!
Having related the "vertical" aspects of our Christian life (13:14) to the "horizontal" (13:10-13), Paul continues in chapter 14 with the horizontal, which amounts to the building up of one another (14:19). In yet another defiance of Hume's rule that we cannot derive "ought" from "is," Paul says "for even Christ did not please Himself ..." (15:3), and to "accept one another" (15:7), because Christ became a servant of Jew and Gentile (15:8-9). Having recently gone through Acts, we can see how clearly God answered Paul's prayers of 15:31, and his proleptic statement of 16:26. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
New Year: Rm 10-13 for Nov 29
"Those who were chosen obtained it," Paul says about what Israel was seeking, but "the rest were hardened...." (11:7). In Romans 9 (cf. 9:18) God's prerogative to show mercy on whomever He wants to is defended. In chapters 10-11, however, and even in 9:30-33, Paul brings up what is there for human beings to deal with, near-at-hand, to speak about: he talks about how "the righteousness out of faith speaks as follows ..." (10:6). What follows is not only THAT God has provided His righteousness for "everyone who believes" (10:3-4), but how "'the Word is near you ...'" (10:8).
There is a danger that we might miss the forest for the trees in what Paul is saying in Romans 10. The quotations and illustrations of 10:6-8 are not to be illustrations of the means of salvation, i.e., confessing this one fact, believing this one fact, but they are illustrations and quotations about Christ, for showing that Christ's resurrection and exalted position go together with our salvation and righteousness, and are in fact as present as what the mouth already says and the heart already believes, which came from the word of faith that Paul preaches (10:8).
In 10;6, the attitude that there are only a few accomplished souls, maybe somewhere, who can do the job of going to heaven to bring Christ down to our level so He would benefit us ... Paul says "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART" that kind of thing! Paul says, do not say in our hearts, that the distance between ourselves and Christ must be covered by us going up to Him. in 10:7 it's the opposite: Paul says, do not say in our hearts, Christ's death puts the distance to Him downward, i.e., that we must "bring Christ up." The twin thoughts are ridiculed, as well as the thought of living by "the righteousness which is out of law" (10:5).
There is culpability when the good news has been preached, and "they did not all heed the good news" (10:16). After establishing that culpability, and God's mercy in spite of it which comes in the future, Paul goes on to the practical implications of God's mercy in chapter 12. Thus chapter 12 is not so much a response to the whole letter so far, althought it is that, as well, but mainly a response to the mercy that has just been proven as late as 11:32.
Romans 11;32 goes on to 12:1, but Paul gives God glory first. And then, Christian ethics: what to do in a general way, general guidelines for the Christians in Rome, in light of who they are. We can ask many ethicists, "how do you go from an 'is' (i.e., the truths of Romans 1-11) to an 'ought' (i.e., "you must do x,y,z")," and many ethicists say you can't go, directly. For example, Paul says "by the mercies of God', present your bodies ...." in 12:1. Is the mercy of God something that implies obligations on our part? Many ethicists say that's impossible, that obligations can only be derived from other obligations, as elaborations or implications of already-accepted obligations.
In point of fact, Paul does not say that "present your bodies ..." is an implication of God's mercies. He urges the Romans, as brethren, and by God's mercies. That phraseology itself is but one of the differences between serving in the oldness of the letter, and in the newness of the Spirit (7:6). We should be able to see the differences from here to as the letter concludes.
One shock, that is not often pointed out, between Christianity and other religions / ethical systems is this very fact ... Paul's letter is concluding! Those who were reading chapters 1-11 of Romans, just so they could "get to the good part," that which we should be doing, have a short class. The very fact that Romans 12ff are the length that they are puts Christianity in a class of religions all by itself.
Not as if people have not tried to 'remedy' this. Alas, they've been too successful, in that Christianity is conceived of as an ethic first, and beliefs second. For Paul, Romans shows what he thought of as standing first, before our ethics can even be shaped: things about the Christian as a result of Christ's death and resurrection! What is left is pointedly NOT an ethics manual: it has too few few words for that: mostly about humility, in chapter 12, and a few words, about living under an earthly ruler, the governing rule of love, and about the urgency of behaving properly. The distinctive thing in Christianity is repeated for emphasis in 15:13, and then goes on to his closings.
The brevity of the ethical section is not an argument "from" silence, but an argument from brevity. Paul is writing to those "who are led by the Spirit of God" (8:14). It is a mark of the presence of that belief that Paul's ethics, neither here no in any other writing, assume the number one focus of His religion. His religion, i.e., his service to God, is in his spirit, in the gospel of His Son (1:9).
There is a danger that we might miss the forest for the trees in what Paul is saying in Romans 10. The quotations and illustrations of 10:6-8 are not to be illustrations of the means of salvation, i.e., confessing this one fact, believing this one fact, but they are illustrations and quotations about Christ, for showing that Christ's resurrection and exalted position go together with our salvation and righteousness, and are in fact as present as what the mouth already says and the heart already believes, which came from the word of faith that Paul preaches (10:8).
In 10;6, the attitude that there are only a few accomplished souls, maybe somewhere, who can do the job of going to heaven to bring Christ down to our level so He would benefit us ... Paul says "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART" that kind of thing! Paul says, do not say in our hearts, that the distance between ourselves and Christ must be covered by us going up to Him. in 10:7 it's the opposite: Paul says, do not say in our hearts, Christ's death puts the distance to Him downward, i.e., that we must "bring Christ up." The twin thoughts are ridiculed, as well as the thought of living by "the righteousness which is out of law" (10:5).
There is culpability when the good news has been preached, and "they did not all heed the good news" (10:16). After establishing that culpability, and God's mercy in spite of it which comes in the future, Paul goes on to the practical implications of God's mercy in chapter 12. Thus chapter 12 is not so much a response to the whole letter so far, althought it is that, as well, but mainly a response to the mercy that has just been proven as late as 11:32.
Romans 11;32 goes on to 12:1, but Paul gives God glory first. And then, Christian ethics: what to do in a general way, general guidelines for the Christians in Rome, in light of who they are. We can ask many ethicists, "how do you go from an 'is' (i.e., the truths of Romans 1-11) to an 'ought' (i.e., "you must do x,y,z")," and many ethicists say you can't go, directly. For example, Paul says "by the mercies of God', present your bodies ...." in 12:1. Is the mercy of God something that implies obligations on our part? Many ethicists say that's impossible, that obligations can only be derived from other obligations, as elaborations or implications of already-accepted obligations.
In point of fact, Paul does not say that "present your bodies ..." is an implication of God's mercies. He urges the Romans, as brethren, and by God's mercies. That phraseology itself is but one of the differences between serving in the oldness of the letter, and in the newness of the Spirit (7:6). We should be able to see the differences from here to as the letter concludes.
One shock, that is not often pointed out, between Christianity and other religions / ethical systems is this very fact ... Paul's letter is concluding! Those who were reading chapters 1-11 of Romans, just so they could "get to the good part," that which we should be doing, have a short class. The very fact that Romans 12ff are the length that they are puts Christianity in a class of religions all by itself.
Not as if people have not tried to 'remedy' this. Alas, they've been too successful, in that Christianity is conceived of as an ethic first, and beliefs second. For Paul, Romans shows what he thought of as standing first, before our ethics can even be shaped: things about the Christian as a result of Christ's death and resurrection! What is left is pointedly NOT an ethics manual: it has too few few words for that: mostly about humility, in chapter 12, and a few words, about living under an earthly ruler, the governing rule of love, and about the urgency of behaving properly. The distinctive thing in Christianity is repeated for emphasis in 15:13, and then goes on to his closings.
The brevity of the ethical section is not an argument "from" silence, but an argument from brevity. Paul is writing to those "who are led by the Spirit of God" (8:14). It is a mark of the presence of that belief that Paul's ethics, neither here no in any other writing, assume the number one focus of His religion. His religion, i.e., his service to God, is in his spirit, in the gospel of His Son (1:9).
New Year: Rm 7-9 for Nov 28
The "newness of the Spirit" (7:6) is explained further by Paul, as he explains further the Christian life in Rm 7-8. Also in the reading for today is the beginning of his defense of the fact that Israel as a nation did not "arrive at" (9:31) the "righteousness which is by faith" (9:30), this righteousness he has been explaining since 3:21.
All three of today's chapters contribute to understanding of the Law. The Law has a "just requirement" (8:4), that is, requirement that there be justice. Either the Mosaic Law itself, in the case of Israel (3:19), or the "work of the Law written in their hearts" (2:15), in the case of the Gentiles, brings the obligation to do right upon the whole human race, and Paul personifies the failure of all the sinful human race in Rm 7. There is only one exception to the rule that all the human race is sinful, and that is God's Son. Christ's work has consequences that change things for the world's problem of sin, as we've seen in 1:16 to 3:31. Christ's work also has consequences that change things about us "who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," (4:24) , as we've seen from Romans 5-6, and see more in Romans 7 and 8. The gospel (good news) is "of God" (1:1) and of God's Son (1:9)..
Among the consequences for those who are "children of God" (8:16) is a change in the manner of serving God (7:6). A change, from what, to what? Before, as well as now for Paul, the Law is good (7:16), but in the presence of sin (7:8), the product of the combination of the Law and sin is that Paul, personifying all human beings, says, "I died." (7:9). The Law, "effecting my death through that which is good" (7:13), had this effect.
The change is from a state that Paul calls "while we were in the flesh" (7:5), to "not in the flesh but in the Spirit," (8:9). This is a change of being, from being those who "are according to the flesh" (8:5a) to "those whare are according to the Spirit" (8:5b). How is this all related to Christ?
Paul gives credit to a divine act upon the "brethren" for this change, and it is related to the death of Christ! Having opened that subject up in Romans 6:2ff, he continues examining more of this event! "My brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (7:4).
Exclamation point! This is the passive voice, "you also were made to die" (7:4), indicating God's work! God made us to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Exclamation point! Even though Paul defends that kind of thing (Rm 9ff), judging from the glory of that kind of thing, expressed all through Rm 3-8 (really: ...) God needs no defense for such a glorious combination of acts! "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:24-5).
Paul explains this new freedom in terms that outstrip the glories of everything in our present creation: "the whole creation groans" (8:22). The existence of the whole present creation is characterized as "slavery to corruption" and compared to its future freedom, which it will share. What freedom? Shared with whom? "The freedom of the glory of the children of God" (8:21)!
All three of today's chapters contribute to understanding of the Law. The Law has a "just requirement" (8:4), that is, requirement that there be justice. Either the Mosaic Law itself, in the case of Israel (3:19), or the "work of the Law written in their hearts" (2:15), in the case of the Gentiles, brings the obligation to do right upon the whole human race, and Paul personifies the failure of all the sinful human race in Rm 7. There is only one exception to the rule that all the human race is sinful, and that is God's Son. Christ's work has consequences that change things for the world's problem of sin, as we've seen in 1:16 to 3:31. Christ's work also has consequences that change things about us "who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," (4:24) , as we've seen from Romans 5-6, and see more in Romans 7 and 8. The gospel (good news) is "of God" (1:1) and of God's Son (1:9)..
Among the consequences for those who are "children of God" (8:16) is a change in the manner of serving God (7:6). A change, from what, to what? Before, as well as now for Paul, the Law is good (7:16), but in the presence of sin (7:8), the product of the combination of the Law and sin is that Paul, personifying all human beings, says, "I died." (7:9). The Law, "effecting my death through that which is good" (7:13), had this effect.
The change is from a state that Paul calls "while we were in the flesh" (7:5), to "not in the flesh but in the Spirit," (8:9). This is a change of being, from being those who "are according to the flesh" (8:5a) to "those whare are according to the Spirit" (8:5b). How is this all related to Christ?
Paul gives credit to a divine act upon the "brethren" for this change, and it is related to the death of Christ! Having opened that subject up in Romans 6:2ff, he continues examining more of this event! "My brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (7:4).
Exclamation point! This is the passive voice, "you also were made to die" (7:4), indicating God's work! God made us to die to the Law through the body of Christ. Exclamation point! Even though Paul defends that kind of thing (Rm 9ff), judging from the glory of that kind of thing, expressed all through Rm 3-8 (really: ...) God needs no defense for such a glorious combination of acts! "Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:24-5).
Paul explains this new freedom in terms that outstrip the glories of everything in our present creation: "the whole creation groans" (8:22). The existence of the whole present creation is characterized as "slavery to corruption" and compared to its future freedom, which it will share. What freedom? Shared with whom? "The freedom of the glory of the children of God" (8:21)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)