For years, I looked up to this guy "<My Friend "D">" as a pastor and teacher, and had asked him from time to time about Romans. He avoided the subject a lot, but opened up later. See the discussion below. The context of this discussion was I had attempted to do a summary of the entire book in a way I was trying to give an overview that carried as little bias as I could muster. He didn't see much value in such. I'll follow-up with my latest revised copied of that study. My question has more to do with getting you opinion on any good points he's raising here VS where he might be giving up too easily (or on the wrong track) - in particular what he details in his "Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 AM" response:
Our earlier conversations on an earlier draft which you had a most negative (but still constructive) reaction to:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really, sorry, I don't really agree with you about some of these points, as I've explained before. I don't want to argue about it, but I am not interested in writing on Romans right now. Everybody already has unshakable opinions about it and WAY too much preaching is done on this book in modern times, to the exclusion of other large sections of Scripture.
-------------
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:
That's ok. I was trying to make this as general but useful as possible, but not getting into specifics. It's clear I wasn't successful in this, but if you wanted to let me know where I might have lost you in this latest one I sent today, I'd be grateful. I'm trying to write something that isn't too specific, and would not be objectionable for most folks on any side of the debate.
-------------
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the point in that, sorry. I don't think one can say anything useful about Romans without triggering disagreement. Being too vague makes it pointless. Being specific instantly triggers disagreement. I think Romans leaves virtually no room for common ground - I don't believe the book has enough material to talk about that all Christians would agree upon, except for the most sweeping of generalizations, which are not very useful to write, as it would be overly obvious to everyone.
-------------
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:
So you don't think it's possible to present both sides of a debate while rising above biases? A believes such-and such, but B believes this-and-that, etc. An overview, like that, would be useful in just giving the novice a starting point on the long journey, before they go wading into the deeper debates. Some folks just want to know what's going on in general in simple terms, with as least bias as possible. I know I would have found this useful.
[...]
-------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 AM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:
I think there are some study Bibles out there that try to mention alternate interpretations of the controversial passages [...]
One time I wrote something explaining alternate views of the atonement (ransom/redemption/liberation, forgiveness/propitiation, expiation, Pelagius' & Abelard's moral example/influence, Pentecostal/Animist/Hemomancy view, the <our old neo-pentecostal denomination> view (a variation on the Pentecostal view), and the ceremonial cleansing view. And I got a strongly negative reaction from <J> about it, and he assured me that lots of people hate reading things that explain alternate viewpoints without just advocating for a position. It was a really unpleasant conversation that left a lasting impression on me. Nobody except my own sons gave me positive feedback about that teaching, so I decided not to do it again. The congregation I preach to every week is so uneducated that they would find such material boring and academic.
So, maybe I haven't explained this before, but here's why I avoid Romans, besides that it's overdone and overused by everyone else. 25 years ago, I read some very compelling academic articles and books about the Greek word "pistis" (faith), especially in Romans and Galatians, arguing that all the places translated as "by faith in Christ" should actually be translated as "by the faithfulness of Christ," which completely changes the meaning of each passage. In fact, one of them argued convincingly that Romans 4 is actually NOT about Abraham being justified by his belief or faith (as opposed to works), but rather Abraham being vindicated (an alternate way to translate the word for "justified") by God's faithfulness rather than human action. And I am not sure Paul EVER contemplated that fath-vs-works idea that everybody believes now (which started with Luther) - I don't think the faith-versus-works conflict appears in the NT outside of James. I think Paul was talking exclusively about whether Gentile Christians need to keep Jewish ceremonial laws (food regulations, circumcision, and holy days) - I don't think he ever addresses the question of whether people can "earn" their way into heaven by being righteous enough, and if he had addressed it, I am not sure he would have denied that. But most people have not read these things, and will not believe me, so there's no point in writing about it. Another translation problem centers around the word "justified," as I mentioned, and I am not sure it has anything to do with forgiveness of sins or not having to earn our way into heaven. It can mean other things, like vindicated or judged, which completely changes the meaning of each passage. The same word - dikaiasune - can mean Righteousness, justification, vindication, judgment, deliverance, etc. Pick your favorite verse about justification and try substituting the other possible translations and see how it changes the meaning. I'm also not completely sure how Paul would have defined "sin." And every time he mentions "death" in Romans, I cannot tell if he is referring to spiritual or physical death, and it changes the meaning of the whole paragraph either way.
In other words, I am completely outside the debate that has been going on since the Reformation about Romans - I think everyone has it completely wrong. I don't think Paul ever conceived of Jesus' sinlessness being "imputed" to us, I don't think anyone in the early church was debating about whether you could "earn" your salvation by being sinless enough, and so on. Regarding predestination, we frame the entire debate using modern conceptions of time and knowledge, which are merely metaphors, and I am not sure we are using these concepts the same way that the Biblical writers did. I am not sure they believed that God knew everything that would happen in the future, and I don't think they believed that God already inhabited the future (that God exists in all times at once). I think Romans 9-11 is only about nations (Israel) having a special status as God's Chosen People, and has nothing to do with individual salvation. I think all of Romans is about Paul defending his exclusive focus on the Gentiles in his ministry, explaining that the Jews had their chance and blew it, and that Christianity is now open to everyone. This was a PR advance sent in anticipation of his first trip to Rome, where he feared the Christians had heard that he was anti-Jewish or antinomian. I think he had heard that the local church in Rome was a mix of Jews and Gentiles who argued constantly about whether to keep the Jewish food laws, and he feared that they already had him pegged for being on one side of this question, so he was trying to allay their fears by saying they could keep doing whatever they felt was right. Most Christians struggle to apply books like Nahum and Lamentations to their lives today because the books addressed such a specific set of events long ago. That is how I feel about Romans, I guess.
I don't see the value in introducing this approach to others right now. All the evangelicals in North America who read it will immediately dismiss anything that doesn't sound like a simple, confident explanation on the side they've already heard, and people in India and Africa don't benefit from me introducing so much uncertainty and confusion into their reading of the Bible. And most North American Christians psychologically need the Bible to mean a certain thing, to help them cope with their feelings of guilt, insecurity, fear and self-doubt. As you mentioned in some recent emails about "blaming Adam," a lot of Christians have some starting assumptions that lead to irreconcilable internal conflict - guilt and frustration - and they need Romans to mean a certain set of ideas that rescues them from their torment. I felt that torment when I was in my twenties, but not anymore.
Here's my question for you: imagine that you were one of the many Christians in church history who didn't have the book of Romans. For example, when the Bible was still a set of scrolls instead of bound volumes, lots of regions and their churches (first three centuries) would have only a partial set of the scrolls. Some language groups today still have no complete Bible in their language, they have only one or more of the Gospels and maybe Psalms. Would you be able to get all the necessary points of Christianity without the book of Romans? I believe that I could get 98.7% of what every Christian needs to know without the book of Romans (16 chapters is 1.3% of the 1189 chapters in the Bible). Most evangelicals need the book of Romans in order to find their favorite doctrines, the things they see as the main points of their religion. I think that is a sign that their whole theology is messed up. Their most important concepts are found mostly on a few pages near the end of a thick book, with the rest of the Bible being secondary or supplemental material for them. The NT writers seemed to think you could get all the doctrines of Christianity from the Old Testament plus the death & resurrection story and some ongoing revelations by the HS, because that is all the apostolic church had. I think evangelicals focus on Romans because they've completely mistranslated and misread it, and derived an elaborate theology about sin and atonement (and related concepts) that depends on Romans and is absent from most of the rest of the Bible. The book is an outlier among books of the Bible. Modern Protestants take that as a reason to give it preeminence, and for me that is a reason to be cautious about it and focus on it about 1% of the time.
My commentary on Romans would be one sentence saying something like, "Please read the entire rest of the Bible a few times and skip this book, and base your beliefs on all the other parts." Then read Romans in a way that fits with what you would have derived from the rest of the OT and NT without it.
[...]
-------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:05 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:
If you're one of the only persons, out of so many Christians, throughout all of history, who has this particular doubt or translational hang up - then why not just go with the crowd? [...] If you had any particular doubts about the translation in the Greek language then what about and Hab. 2 verse 4 in the Hebrew language? I also find it very hard to ignore that something very special happened with Martin Luther.... I guess what I'm saying is that maybe there's too much of your background as a lawyer and being very intelligent - and maybe even a little picky - over complicating things here ... I don't know... what do you think? is that a possibility? Maybe these are good qualities in the legal and academic professions, but a hindrance for Christian to have after a certain point. Even so I am going to I think a bit more about this [...]
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:38 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:
I think the NET has some footnotes perhaps sharing your concerns? This is from Hab 2:4. I think "God's faithfulness" is a possibility here.
15 tn Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111-12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).
[...]
-------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I hadn't found that note [in the NET bible] yet, but I am not surprised. My studies were about the Greek NT, but it makes sense to me that the Hebrew OT would have the same issues. When I read the OT overall, it is clearly not presenting the Protestant faith-versus-works dichotomy, but rather righteous-versus-ungodly.
The NKJV also has a few footnotes about the translation problems with pistis in the NT, or at least it did back in the 1980s. But NOBODY influential teaches that, and if I teach something too unique, everyone will give me the same reaction you did - "Who do you think you are?!? How could you be right and everyone else wrong?"
-------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:
I can still see your side of things here for sure. I just think that if God left it this unclear for that long, then He's messed up big time. So I see that less likely a scenario. On the other hand the catholic religious system presented a lot of errors [...] for centuries, but was still wrong, even though it was the majority [opinion]. So yeah, i can see both sides here.
P.S. - What papers from 25 years ago were you referring to that gave you pause? You didn't mention the title/author.
-------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:
Academic articles by a professor named George Howard (I've forgotten the titles), a doctoral dissertation by Richard Hays, a book by Krister Stendahl called Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, and a book by Lloyd Gaston called Paul and the Torah.
I'm not claiming to have discovered a secret that was hidden, except for the translation issues, which the newer versions are at least starting to footnote, as we mentioned. Maybe in another generation or two the seminary grads will have been taught about these translation problems. I am not claiming a direct revelation about this, or that God showed me this, or anything like that. I think it should have been obvious to anyone reading carefully all along, but most people don't - Romans is the book that people do not really READ, they just impute their ideas into it, scanning the page for the buzzwords that they think refer to their preconceived set of ideas. I've never met anyone who reads Romans and asks why the book is structured the way it is, why the points people claim are found there are not easily found elsewhere in the Bible, how the original audience would have understood it, and so on. And most believers today are so unfamiliar with large sections of the Bible that they have no idea that most of it is not about what they conceive as Christianity. Not saying God hid anything that I discovered. I'm saying that I read enough about it to start doubting the majority viewpoint. I almost never talk about this to anyone. [...] I can't help it that the majority view seems unsupportable to me.
Also, the same evangelicals who ignore chapters in 1 Corinthians (like chapter 11, about headcoverings, or the passages about gifts, and so on), on the basis that these are isolated references to something and therefore not core teachings, have failed to apply the same interpretive principle to Romans. Instead, they come at the Bible with their heads full of doctrines, and feast on Romans because they find there the words that they associate with their elaborate ideas. Any Christians who have been trying to learn and follow the Bible as a whole have naturally had to focus on a lot of stuff besides the Romans misinterpretations, and everyone should have known to do that, even if very few do so
[...]
As far as what you know about God saving you and Him being merciful, those concepts permeate the books of Psalms and Isaiah. The Bible teaches that God is merciful and that trusting him for salvation means trusting him to the exclusion of trusting anything else, including ourselves.