We started Romans today in New Testament Survey (don't worry, we've already done the Corinthian and Thessalonian letters and Galatians... No worries :-). I suggested that Paul wrote Romans for at least three reasons:
1. To introduce himself to the Romans, hoping to use Rome as a base for a mission into Spain (Rom. 15:24).
Paul is a church planter, not a church grower (Rom. 15:20), and that to Gentiles rather than to Jews (Gal. 2:7-8). He senses that his mission in the East is done and it is time to move West (Rom. 15:23).
I increasingly think the driving force behind Paul the church planter/missionary is a sense that "the gospel must first be preached to all nations" (Mark 13:10), an idea echoed in Colossians 1:23. When the full number of the Gentiles has come in, Israel's hardened heart will soften and Christ will go out from Zion (Rom. 11:25-26).
2. To clarify the gospel that Paul really preaches (Rom. 3:8).
Romans is not a systematic theology textbook. It is a defense of the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles (1:16; cf. Gal. 2:2). The driving issue behind the letter is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God, the justification of the Gentiles and how that impacts God's relationship with Israel.
Paul apparently had a bad reputation among Jews. The book of Acts gives us a picture of this fact when Paul gets to Jerusalem in Acts 21. James sits Paul down and tells him how people think he is telling Jews to stop circumcising and following the Law of Moses (21:21). James has Paul participate in some temple sacrifices to show it isn't true and that he himself observes the Law (21:24), that it is only Gentiles he tells not to observe the Law, not Jews.
Paul probably was not exactly on the same page as James, but James was close. Paul did believe that the unity of the church between Gentile and Jew was more important than things like purity regulations (Gal. 2:12-14; cf. 1 Cor. 9:20).
Paul shows evidence of his bad reputation, though, in Romans 3:8 as well. People say that his teaching is, "Let's do evil so that good may come." This is a perverted version of Paul's teaching to the Gentiles that "you are not under law but under grace" (Rom. 6:14). By this Paul did not mean that God no longer expected a person to live righteously. Sleeping with your step mother had not suddenly become something to be proud of (1 Cor. 5:1-2).
Christ and the Spirit did not destroy the Jewish Law as ethical expectation for Paul (Rom. 3:31), although Gentiles were not bound by its "ethnic" particulars. Rather, the Spirit empowered a person actually to keep the Law (Rom. 2:14-15; 8:4) in a way they could not previously do (Rom. 7:12, 16, 19).
3. To address issues of unity Paul knows all too well.
In some of the later chapters of Romans Paul addresses issues we have already seen in 1 Corinthians, issues of the strong and the weak. His discussion in Romans is more general, but it is at least possible that Paul knows that some of the tensions the Corinthian church has experienced exist among the Roman churches as well. Indeed, the diversity of believers at Rome was likely very great, including individuals far more "conservative" than Paul, both Jewish and Gentile.
Have I missed any important reasons for Romans here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Was Paul using his own ethnic background to formulate "the gospel"? He contrasts the Law against "grace", because the Law of Moses formulated the nation of Israel. He was writing Romans in his later days, not seeing the "Lord's return" but theologizing about the purposes and plans of God...for the future (this is my understanding of what Augustine also did when Rome fell)...This "ancient message" should be re-formulated...But, I'm not sure "how"...But, I do think it has everything to do with affirming religious differences.
Since our nation-states are protected by the laws that represent the values a nation holds (just as the "law of Moses" did in Israel), then how does equality "work" when it comes to globalization? (especially when globalization is mainly driven by economics....and the "bottom line" is usually profit margins, not human flourishing? And yet, the "market system" is what is profitable in "God's invisible hand"????)...Then, there are those nations who do not adhere to our values of "freedom and justice for all"...how do we develop a unifying "justice system" or Constitution that would guard the common values....could there be consensus brought among nations who hold different values and interests? (Self interest is always a way of appeal...but then, how to negotiate those interests that would conflict with "other" interest...are there "common interests"...????)
Paul seems to say that, as far as God is concerned all men are created equal (under sin, as far as God's righteousness)...but he also says that we are also identified in Christ's death so that our ethnic identity is relative to our ultimate identity in Christ...The "problem" then becomes understanding the Church as an entity that is not understood as a "nation"...what does that look like?...
Since we cannot express identification other than a physical "form", then the nation is the way we understand our "lives"... We must affirm the differences of religious conviction and commitment (as long as it does not impinge on another's freedom) and allow for them under a "free" international government.
Perhaps I should add that we attended a conference today on the non-proleferation of nuclear power (energy)...
Since the Cold War has ended, has the NPT lost it's relevance? How do we agree when NATO can't even agree on who is to be allowed entrance in it's borders? What do we do with nuclear energy, ban it altogether, when there are many benefits of it? How do we "protect" or defend it's "proper use" and who is to decide on it's "proper use"? Balance of power to our nation was lost in the Cold War, and yet we see some countries "gaining ground" when it comes to "power"...Is there a way of equalization of power when dictators and terriorists still exist?
And what is to be the mission of the military, if not the protection of the nation-state and it's interests? Should we reformulate the military's "mission"? Or can we really believe that "all people" are to be trusted "under the rule of law", when their countries and cultures do not adhere or value the "rule of law"?
Is a relgious ideology different from a political ideology? There is no "special revelation", that should be the "bottom line"...for it is only those who believe that they have "God's truth" that are dogmatic in implementing "truth" upon others...let's just be honest and say that we, as "selves", are identified more with our political and ideological commitments than we like to admit...and that affects our understanding (interpretation) of "life" and "inspired" texts....
Post a Comment