NT Wright - Romans in a Week

[darinhouston]

Anyhow, these are ideas I would suggest, in order to make you my guinea pig. I'm confident on my conclusions about the purpose and context of Romans because what I discovered now made sense of the whole ---er --- most of the letter.

Good points on reading through quickly often (after all, it's a letter). I have to caution some humility here though vs. Wright's scholarship -- I appreciate that your views are to make sense of the whole /most of the letter, but Wright is looking to make sense of the whole of Paul's thoughts as they relate to the Jewish understanding from Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. about God, the Messiah, etc. Whether he does that or not remains to be seen, but if one has to tweak one's understanding of Romans to fit the rest of it, then that "MIGHT" be worth strong consideration.

[mikew]

Good points on reading through quickly often (after all, it's a letter). I have to caution some humility here though vs. Wright's scholarship -- I appreciate that your views are to make sense of the whole /most of the letter, but Wright is looking to make sense of the whole of Paul's thoughts as they relate to the Jewish understanding from Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. about God, the Messiah, etc. Whether he does that or not remains to be seen, but if one has to tweak one's understanding of Romans to fit the rest of it, then that "MIGHT" be worth strong consideration.

Like I said earlier, it appears by what I have read that NT Wright is getting more insight into Romans (not just scholarly tidbits) than other writers on Romans. I would like to read more of what he has found on Romans. Though that one article quoted earlier I found some points hard to grasp, some points were really good (it agrees with my understanding), and some seem to miss the target.
Other writers I have investigated have forced tidbits of knowledge together. This failure to grasp critical points shows how difficult it is to understand Romans.
I will have to see how Paul approaches this attempt to arrive at "Jewish understanding" because this was what Jesus exposed for their wrongful deeds. What does make sense is when we interpret Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel,etc through the New Testament. In the case of Daniel, it was revealed to Daniel that the meaning would be sealed until the time of the end. Maybe the best use of knowledge of Judaism of the first century would be to look at the mindset and culture from which the disciples had to emerge.
But certainly if NT Wright is giving the best study on Romans (a point lacking foundation in this discussion), I would like to consider more of what he contributes.

[steve]

I listened to Wright's "Romans in a Week" lectures about three or four years ago (when I was in Israel, actually. I don't remember what year it was). It was the first I had ever listened to anything by him, and had not yet read anything by him, so it was my first exposure to his thought.

I don't remember the specifics, since it was some time ago, but I remember being pleased that Wright was seeing many of the things in Romans in the same way I had taught them, and I had never heard anyone else do so. As I recall, there were some items that I did not see the same way, but overall, I really liked his thoughts.

My view of Romans (and I think this was true of him also, though feel free to correct me, if I am remembering wrongly), is that there was disharmony between the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome—probably for the reasons Wright suggests, and that Paul speaks to both sides of the aisle, addressing Jewish smugness first, and only secondarily addressing the attitude of the Gentiles toward the Jews, in Romans 11. In chapters 14 and 15, he speaks to both, but probably has the Gentiles primarily in mind.

I also see Romans 9-11 as a continuation—not an interruption—of Paul's earlier chapters, but I think he uses that section to answer an objection that is raised by things he said at the end of chapter 8, just as he used considerable space addressing objections that his argument anticipated in chapters 3 and 6.

[Danny]

FWIW, I purchased "Romans in a Week" on CD a couple of years ago and have listened through it a few times. I think it is a wonderful teaching. It provided me with a framework for understanding Paul's letter to the Romans which brought both the entire letter and specific passages into much clearer contextual focus. I consider it money (and time) well spent.

[darinhouston]

Looks like he has a Romans in a day set, too (free).

Romans in a Day:
God's Gospel, God's Son, God's Righteousness (30.1MB MP3) http://www.calvin.edu/worship/idis/theo ... _part1.mp3

New Exodus, New Creation, New Humanity (27.8MB MP3) http://www.calvin.edu/worship/idis/theo ... _part2.mp3

'All Israel' and the Church's Task (29.9MB MP3) http://www.calvin.edu/worship/idis/theo ... _part3.mp3

[mikew]

After some initial excitement about Wright's article (the 1995 one, the link provided earlier), an excitement appropriate to Wright for the initial section of his paper, I found the subsequent material to appear as the usual forced meanings and structure as done by other writers. This is no shame upon Wright but is just representing the traditional problem of understanding Romans.

He had started describing the racial tension and how the banishment of Jews from Rome influenced the gentile believers. Indeed he was right in saying that the internal divisions wasn't the purpose for Paul's letter to Rome, but he misses the actual reason derived from this problem. The actual reason of Paul's letter was to fix the bad image caused by the Roman believers' ridicule of Jews. Such ridicule created a bad taste among the Jews who would then decide it to be incomprehensible to follow a sect that totally rejected the Jews. Paul wanted to make sure that Jews still would accept the Messiah.

The other problem was a major problem of fleshly behavior shown by their judgmental attitude and their boasting.

Often the questions asked by Paul were actually related to a problem or misconception of the Roman gentile believers. In Rom 3:27 when Paul asks "where then is boasting?", Paul was asking on what basis the gentile believers were boasting about their faith. Then a big part of the reason that Abraham was mentioned in chapter 4 was to take away basis for boasting and action to the glory of the flesh.

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? (ASV)
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God (ESV)

When the issue at 3:27 is seen as the problem of the Roman gentiles' boasting, the transition into chapter 4 makes good sense. This is given just as an example of what Paul was doing.

By understanding the proper purpose of Romans, the letter is seen to have a natural flow though mingled with a complex underflow of topics to enhance and develop what Paul wants to say. (Truly this underflow of topics had captured people's attentions away from the main topic.)

The Roman gentile believers boasted in the faith over and against the Jews and their law. Such boasting then was contrary to a big motivation of Paul's missionary work, namely that of reaching the nations with the gospel in order to make the Jews jealous.

Rom 10:19 But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you.

Chapter 11 shows in stronger words the mission of Paul

Rom 11:12-14 Now if their fall, is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (13) But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; (14)if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them.

[mikew]

Here's more detailed tips on reading Romans.

1.When studying Romans you must be able to see the possibility that the wrath of God was a first century event
2.Get caught up in the emotions. Pay attention to the change of mood and things that could make people angry. How does Paul calm the audience down after a negative passage?
3.Imagine hearing the letter as being part of a live audience with group dynamics. Try to get away from the idea you are reading a book (this may not help all people though).
4.Realize that the audience consisted essentially of gentile believers who had mostly been leftovers from a Jewish congregation (or synagogue that was accepting of the members who accepted Jesus as being the Christ ) now left to run everything after the Jews were banished in AD49.
5.Realize that the gentiles had a bad experience of subjection under the Jewish law and then had bitterness toward Jews.
6.Consider reasons why Paul may have only spoken of Jews before chapter 9 and then he referred only to Israel from chapter 9 through chapter 11.
7. Figure out how themes of one passage connect with the themes of the preceding and subsequent segments. It should be assumed that Paul wrote in a logical sequence.