I'm the Bible teacher at Silver Lake Wesleyan Camp this week. I thought I'd follow
Scot McKnight's lead and work somewhat backward through the book. I will say that it's working really well.
Over the years, I have found that Romans surprisingly doesn't grab the kind of enthusiasm in teaching that a book like 1 Corinthians does. The typical approach, starting from the beginning, somehow easily becomes very abstract and heady. There are always a few super-enthusiasts, but the bulk seem to glaze over. Then there often seems little time left when you get to the practical teaching in 12-16, and 16 barely gets a glance.
1. I started with Romans 16. To be honest, I'm from the old school that thinks this chapter was actually sent to Ephesus. The whole list of names just screams Ephesus to me. However, this is not the majority opinion at current, and I decided it was better for the camp to assume a Roman destination for the chapter.
It does make a difference in how you read Romans. For example, I think you will likely see more Jews--and powerful Jewish voices--as part of the Roman church if you think chapter 16 was attached. You will also assume Paul knew a lot more people at Rome than otherwise--and a lot more about their situation.
Whatever the destination, I am extremely grateful for the insights into the make-up of some large urban collection of churches.
Phoebe, a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Had some good pushback on Facebook about whether she was a deacon or a servant. I did a quick word study that strongly confirmed "deacon" in my mind. The Gospels do not use the word as a technical term, only Paul does. 1 Timothy 3 shows that it became an official office. That suggests to me that it is such in Philippians 1:1, where Paul greets deacons at that church. If so, then Romans 16:1 is the only other place where Paul references a diakonos of a church (as opposed to being a servant or minister of Christ). That is the context clue that tips the scales to a role in a church.
Priscilla and Aquila -- she's mentioned first, again. Noted.
Andronicus and Junia -- apostles. noted. anti-bias of ESV, noted.
I loved McKnight's stuff on the physical and social location of Christians at Rome, BTW.
2. I got off track. Typical.
Scot sees the lens of the "strong" and the "weak" in 14-15 as focal to understanding Romans. He reconstructs a storyline that is plausible even if he may exaggerate it a little. The church had a primarily Jewish founding. Of course! The church was likely founded before the Gentile explosion and certainly before the heart of the Pauline mission.
Then Claudius kicks the Jewish Christians out of Rome in AD49. Overnight, it becomes a predominantly Gentile church. McKnight would say a Gentile church that was not very Law-observant. Of that, I'm less sure, but it's plausible enough. Then Claudius dies. Jewish Christians return. Now you have a "strong" (Gentile Christians) group and a now out-of-power "weak" group (more Torah-observant, predominantly Jewish Christians). It's a fascinating scenario.
Paul's goal is peace, which we see especially in 12-15.
3. McKnight's thesis in 9-11 is fascinating as well, although I don't think I can go there in the end. He pictures Phoebe addressing the "weak" in Romans 9-10 and into 11. Then she turns and addresses the "strong" in the rest of Romans 11. This is really one of the most interesting readings of these chapters I have ever heard!
Well, I started this post wanting to put down some of my thoughts on Romans 9-11. I've written them down before. I actually have a book on Romans with Wesleyan Publishing House. Two devotionals go with it, one on Romans 1-8 and the other on Romans 9-16.
But here were some of my usual thoughts:
- Romans 9-11 addresses nagging questions--Why haven't more Jews believed? And why the heck have so many Gentiles believed?! Has God abandoned Israel?
- Paul's answer is that God can do whatever he wants, so deal with it. McKnight makes I think a really good observation that the scriptural examples Paul uses all point to the frequent unpredictability of God's plan.
- Although it is not the easiest interpretation to make, I do think Paul teaches in 11:26 that ethnic Israel will come to faith around the time of Christ's return. It's not an easy interpretation in part because it plays into some blindspots in the church today. But that's what it seems to say.
- This is about the Gentiles and Israel, not individual predestination. The fact that Israel can still be saved shows that predestination is not one-sided or necessarily permanent.
- God has decided that the way to salvation is by faith. This is true for both Jew and Gentile. It's as simple as the word in your mouth. If you confess Jesus is Lord, if you believe God raised him from the dead, it's that simple.
There was the usual engagement with philosophical and theological tangents (I didn't say it quite so strongly as below):
- If God determines everything minutely, he is a devil. Actually, he would literally be telling Satan and every serial killer exactly what to do.
- The saying, "Everything happens for a reason" is misleading at best. If God empowers us to have some freedom to choose then we and our free will are frequently the reason many things happen, not God's best plan.
- Technically, Wesleyans don't believe in free will. We believe in God-empowered free will.
- The truth is neither total indeterminism (Thom Oord) or total determinism (John Piper). God determines some things and allows other things.
- This doesn't contradict the sovereignty of God. If God, in control, allows something, he has sovereignly decided to allow it. Who are you, o clay, to tell him he can't?
