Romans Lectures

[dean198]

I'm listening to Steve's lectures on Romans right now and really enjoying hearing different views on it which appear to make a lot more sense than anything I've heard before.
Just a few observations, as I think of them:

I think most modern scholars now see Romans as occasional. Robert Jewett perhaps is largely responsible for this, but he sees the primary reason as gaining strategic support for Paul's planned mission to Spain. He also sees a problem in the church of Rome occasioned by the return of the Jews to Rome after the death of Claudius, resulting in two communities living ill-at-ease with each other.

I see 'righteousness of God' as meaning the same thing through Romans. When Paul speaks of a righteousness from God in Philippians, he adds the preposition 'ek'. Consequently I don't believe that there is an imputation of Christ's righteousness.

I found the comments on temple robbing very interesting, and was wondering if anyone has the reference to it in Josephus? It's a senator's wife who gives a donation for the temple, but the Jews who were entrusted with it ran off with the money.

[mikew]

Funny thing. I was reading a short article about Judaism in Rome around the time some started becoming followers of Jesus.

This reference is sort of similar to what you were describing.
"Cicero, for instance, had to defend his client, Flaccus, who had been dismissed as a praetor of the province of Asia, against the accusation that he had misappropriated funds donated by Asiatic Jews for the temple in Jerusalem." (Jos., Ant. 14.77; War 1.144.), pg 87 of The Romans Debate, article titled Jewish Community in Ancient Rome, article by Wolfgang Wiefel

Then more specifically
"...a young woman by the name of Fulvia ,wife of a senator, had, in her predilection for Jews, become the victim of an imposter. He had succeeded in obtaining fund from her for a temple in Jerusalem. These funds never arrived in Jerusalem"(Jos. Ant. 18.81-84) ibid. pg 88

I haven't felt like the Spain trip was anything central to the idea of the letter. The main thrust was to remove Gentiles' boasting and promote in them a benevolent heart toward Jews. Gentile believers initially had their experience of salvation through the Jewish believers' synagogues and such Gentile believers got a dose of legalism that soured any interest in the Law (Jewish Law or Law of Moses). So by the time the Jews returned from banishment, the Gentiles had new rules and new doctrines. The Gentiles controlled things and rejected the Jews from fellowship in the main gatherings.

[steve]

The incident to which I was referring is found in Josephus' "Antiquities" 18.81-83. My memory was not quite accurate. I had remembered it being a senator's wife, but looking at it again, it just says "a woman of great dignity" whose husband Saturninus had access to Tiberius (perhaps he was a senator, but Josephus does not seem to say so).

[mikew]

Ok. I was reading about the temple donation and adding (editing) it around the time Steve wrote his post.

The article also mentions that the authenticity of the account is disputed. And the association with the Senator's wife may have come from the book The Romans Debate. There must have been some augmentation of the account by subsequent writers from the distant past.

[dean198]

Thanks for the reference!

[dean198]

I haven't felt like the Spain trip was anything central to the idea of the letter. The main thrust was to remove Gentiles' boasting and promote in them a benevolent heart toward Jews. Gentile believers initially had their experience of salvation through the Jewish believers' synagogues and such Gentile believers got a dose of legalism that soured any interest in the Law (Jewish Law or Law of Moses). So by the time the Jews returned from banishment, the Gentiles had new rules and new doctrines. The Gentiles controlled things and rejected the Jews from fellowship in the main gatherings.

I've only read bits here and there, and Jewett's commentary is very long and technical, and I've only peaked into it, but the argument is basically that Paul needed a united church behind him for his Spanish mission. Jewett and others argue that the long list of names at the end of Romans is really important in providing clues as to what Paul was trying to achieve, though I don't have it all memorized (I have references to books that cover it somewhere). Jewett is big on putting Romans in the social context, and his insights on the greetings at the end seem to have been the final nail in the coffin of the theory that that section was originally tagged onto Ephesians. A lady from Corinth is mentioned as Paul's patron, so the idea is that she was going ahead to smooth the way.

[Homer]

dean198,

You wrote:

I see 'righteousness of God' as meaning the same thing through Romans. When Paul speaks of a righteousness from God in Philippians, he adds the preposition 'ek'. Consequently I don't believe that there is an imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks & God bless, Homer

[mikew]

I haven't felt like the Spain trip was anything central to the idea of the letter. The main thrust was to remove Gentiles' boasting and promote in them a benevolent heart toward Jews. Gentile believers initially had their experience of salvation through the Jewish believers' synagogues and such Gentile believers got a dose of legalism that soured any interest in the Law (Jewish Law or Law of Moses). So by the time the Jews returned from banishment, the Gentiles had new rules and new doctrines. The Gentiles controlled things and rejected the Jews from fellowship in the main gatherings.

I've only read bits here and there, and Jewett's commentary is very long and technical, and I've only peaked into it, but the argument is basically that Paul needed a united church behind him for his Spanish mission. Jewett and others argue that the long list of names at the end of Romans is really important in providing clues as to what Paul was trying to achieve, though I don't have it all memorized (I have references to books that cover it somewhere). Jewett is big on putting Romans in the social context, and his insights on the greetings at the end seem to have been the final nail in the coffin of the theory that that section was originally tagged onto Ephesians. A lady from Corinth is mentioned as Paul's patron, so the idea is that she was going ahead to smooth the way.

Jewett in the end does not show the letter to the Romans in a simple light. He doesn't provide a key that makes Romans easy to read and understand. Indeed there is rhetoric in Paul's letter, but I don't think the rhetoric is in some formal structure but is in the persuasive techniques Paul employs. What is critical to understand here is that Paul had to write a letter that could be understood quickly by his audience with the letter read aloud to the group. If the letter were so difficult that it took them ten years to figure it out, that would be too late for Paul's purpose. (Though it may be possible that the audience got confused on some sections, it seems now that the letter was simple enough in general such that the audience could quickly understand Paul's main issues.)

When we can see that Paul addressed problems of the Gentile audience and that the transition from Rom 1 into Rom 2:1 was an appeal similar to Nathan's approach to King David (2Sam 12:1-9), the letter can start to be seen as having a very simple flow to it. Our difficulty comes from a detachment from the circumstances of the times and the emotions of the letter.

Even chapter 16 makes sense when we understand the divisions in the Roman Church. The greetings were to those who were not welcomed in the general fellowship. If they were direct audience to the letter, Paul would have given direct greetings. So Paul was giving sort of a practical step to reconcile the Church groups.

[dean198]

dean198,

You wrote:

I see 'righteousness of God' as meaning the same thing through Romans. When Paul speaks of a righteousness from God in Philippians, he adds the preposition 'ek'. Consequently I don't believe that there is an imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks & God bless, Homer

Sure, I'll try. Basically all that Romans ever says is that faith is imputed or counted for righteousness. It never says that the righteousness of another is imputed to our account. The doctrine properly believes that the perfect obedience of Christ to the law is imputed to our account.

Here is what the Westminister Confession says:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them

Where is that in Scripture?

[darinhouston]

NT Wright has a lot to say about this -- I'll try to find something when I get a chance unless Rick beats me to it.