A Unique Proposal on Rom 1:18-2:1

[mikesw]

I don't know if I am making typing errors, but words seem to be missing in what I post.
I will clarify this point "the next, In 26-27, tends to sound like gentiles but these could be involved in OT worship of other gods."
I mean this as: The next verses (26-27) tend to sound like gentiles but these could be describing Israel people involved worship of other gods, as an unmentioned detail of idol worship by the Israel tribes found in OT writings. I figure the giving up of natural relations would point primarily to gentiles -- and could mean Paul is interweaving details of gentiles with Jews.
The initial reading of Rom 1:18b-32 then gives this dramatized history of the Israel/Jewish people. Logically this text presents only the negative things about the Jews over their whole history and may explain the situation they were in at that time. As a history, it does not indict any Jews of the past as if wrath is being being revealed against them at the time Paul writes.
There are certainly more details regarding why the gentiles saw this as wrath revealed against Jews. But Paul exposes the gentiles' judgmental inclination in 2:1. This approach is hardly anticipated by readers until a minor break through with the association of Paul's approach seeming to be as clever as Nathan's with David ( Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 54).

 

[mikesw]

I think thematically, Romans 1:16-17 sets the stage for where Paul is leading his audience.

In terms of his audience, I would suggest a three-tiered audience, with the primary audience as gentile (in partial agreement with you), a secondary audience of Christ-following Jews (returning from exile), and a third audience of unbelieving Jews. I would also suggest that the interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) in Romans is framed as a gentile believer, representing the primary audience.

A good essay to read is Lloyd Bitzer's essay on the rhetorical situation. This is an old essay published in the late 1960s that has helped my understanding of various elements of Romans, and is a classic read. He is writing to a secular audience and the essay is not about anything biblical. However, it establishes some important principles for establishing why something is written. (Also see Richard Vatz's and Scot Consigny's responses to Bitzer. All were published within 10 years in the journal "Rhetoric.")

In terms of Romans 1:18ff, one has to wonder why Paul begins with the wrath of God against idolatry when speaking to people of faith (1:8). The fundamental point Paul is making here is a warning. If the gentiles had removed themselves from the synagogue community to establish their own communities of faith, they can no longer claim the exemption from sacrifice to the emperor/Rome that was required. Jews were exempt and as long as the gentiles were tied to the synagogue community, they could participate in the exemption. By separating from the synagogue (they were previously seen as proselytes), they put themselves at risk of being required to participate in a pagan practice. Even more, they cannot support the Christ-following Jews who were returning from the exile of Claudius.

The introduction in 1:1-17 is important to establishing the frame of the letter. I will not go into detail here, but I would suggest reading this carefully and slowly noting the following:

• ...

That is enough for now.

It seems more of Nanos's idea of an issue of exemptions from sacrifices to the emperor. What is critical is that the Claudius edict led to the expelling of Jewish Christians from Rome. This left gentiles to figure out some other form of worship. But my main point to share is the series of transitions in Rom 1:15-18.
Paul introduces his interest in preaching the gospel to the gentiles (v15). This certainly captures the gentiles' attention as something of great joy to them. Paul assures them that he has great interest in the gospel (v16). Then verse 17 appears to begin Paul's preaching of the gospel to them and he mentions the focus on faith and its general benefit and centrality in the gospel. Paul shares in v18 about the wrath aspect of the gospel since the wrath removes ungodliness, as found in Rom 11:26 and Isa 59:20LXX: The deliverer will come for the sake of Zion, and he will turn ungodliness back from Jacob." It is the removal of unrighteous influences that gives the Israel people freedom from additional judgment. Schreiner (Romans1998, 77-78) notes the two aspects of the gospel, although I differ from his view. Paul notes this again in Rom 2:16. Consequently, Rom 1:18b-32 are perceived to be Paul in a teaching mode. (Longenecker in Romans page 244 expects that Paul speaks as a teacher instead of a personal level since Paul did not start the church in Rome.) My previous post shows this is a teaching thought to be about the judgment of Jews. Paul only uses that passage to expose the judgmental inclination of the gentiles regarding the Jews.

This emphasis on the gospel appears to the gentiles as the point he is making concerning the wrath of God and a people who seem subject to the wrath. I share in the earlier post that 1:18b-32 shows the history of Israel/Jews despite showing a contemporary wrath upon them. In fact, Christ Jesus came to resolve the issue of unrighteousness in Israel (Isa 59:20; Rom 5:20 and 11:26). This odd change of topic is resolved in 2:1 where Paul turns the gentiles' judgmental inclination against their own sins.

 

[TibiasDad]

It is harder to match gentiles to vv 18b-21 since they lack any identifiable unified history among them. They do not have a point in time where they knew God such that they could honor him and therefore could not shift to dishonor God (v21).

This is where I disagree; we do not have a detailed history, but the indication that Cain and Abel knew God and communicated with him is clear! Romans 1 is a generalized statement, and there was a time, even as far back as Cain and Abel where man knew God and continuously suppressed that knowledge to the point that God gave mankind over to their own lusts.

Doug

 

[mikesw]

This is where I disagree; we do not have a detailed history, but the indication that Cain and Abel knew God and communicated with him is clear! Romans 1 is a generalized statement, and there was a time, even as far back as Cain and Abel where man knew God and continuously suppressed that knowledge to the point that God gave mankind over to their own lusts.

Doug

That would be where you try to make an argument without any scriptural context (i.e. of what happens after Cain and Abel) as an argument against this being about Israel history (where scripture covers this abundantly). Stowers (A Rereading of Romans, 86-88) notes of attempts to map Rom 1:18-32 with Adam's fall actually fails because the attention to Adam's fall is not given attention in Jewish writings. I think the same would extend to theories starting with Cain and Abel.
Also, it is wrong to find the wrath being revealed against people in Paul's day being judged for the knowledge Cain and Abel had. Although Owen proposes a unexciting workaround to the point he makes, this point is good: " Are we to imagine that each Gentile generation, and each individual within each generation, first knows the truth and then suppresses it by a single, irrevocable act, so that it remains for ever more suppressed?" (H. P. Owen, ‘The scope of natural revelation in Rom. I and Acts xvii’, NTS 5 (1959), 133–43, here 141.)
Thus, there are various reasons that the passage describes Israel history rather than the history of humanity.

P. S.
Note that Stowers has good insights into Roman culture and shares some good info on Jewish writings. He mixes the gentiles' interest in the gospel with ideas of self-mastery in a fashion distinct from conventional Christian theology.

 

[mikesw]

I think thematically, Romans 1:16-17 sets the stage for where Paul is leading his audience.

In terms of his audience, I would suggest a three-tiered audience, with the primary audience as gentile (in partial agreement with you), a secondary audience of Christ-following Jews (returning from exile), and a third audience of unbelieving Jews. I would also suggest that the interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) in Romans is framed as a gentile believer, representing the primary audience.

A good essay to read is Lloyd Bitzer's essay on the rhetorical situation. This is an old essay published in the late 1960s that has helped my understanding of various elements of Romans, and is a classic read. He is writing to a secular audience and the essay is not about anything biblical. However, it establishes some important principles for establishing why something is written. (Also see Richard Vatz's and Scot Consigny's responses to Bitzer. All were published within 10 years in the journal "Rhetoric.")

In terms of Romans 1:18ff, one has to wonder why Paul begins with the wrath of God against idolatry when speaking to people of faith (1:8). The fundamental point Paul is making here is a warning. If the gentiles had removed themselves from the synagogue community to establish their own communities of faith, they can no longer claim the exemption from sacrifice to the emperor/Rome that was required. Jews were exempt and as long as the gentiles were tied to the synagogue community, they could participate in the exemption. By separating from the synagogue (they were previously seen as proselytes), they put themselves at risk of being required to participate in a pagan practice. Even more, they cannot support the Christ-following Jews who were returning from the exile of Claudius.

The introduction in 1:1-17 is important to establishing the frame of the letter. I will not go into detail here, but I would suggest reading this carefully and slowly noting the following:

• Paul's gospel is explicitly Jewish in character and relies heavily on Jewish scripture to support it (1:1-4).
• He is speaking primarily to gentiles (1:13) when using the second person ("you"). However, these gentiles (at least the leadership) see themselves replacing Jews.
• The interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) of Romans is a gentile. This should be obvious since the primary audience is gentile. However, many still maintain that the interlocutor is Jewish. Understanding the interlocutor as a gentile changes the way we read the interaction and the intention of Paul
• Paul acknowledges their faith (1:8) but seeks to strengthen them. (This is an irony that should be factored into our interpretation of Romans 14-15).
• Paul acknowledges his debt to both Greeks and barbarians. We generally skip over this verse, but we should ask why he includes this. First, in Rome the scriptures used by the synagogue would have been in Greek and Paul uses this version of his scriptures throughout the text. Greeks (Hellenists) were those who primarily spoke Greek and most of his dealings among the gentiles (the nations) had been in the Greek speaking cultures. Barbarians seems odd in this context, unless we remember that for the Romans, barbarians technically means someone who speaks in a foreign tongue. For gentile Romans, that would include the Jews, those for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been primary.
• Paul gives primacy to the Jews in terms of salvation by faith. We can debate what this means, but it is clear that they are placed first. The Messiah was a Jew, they retain the covenants, and salvation comes from them. Paul never denies his own Jewishness.

That is enough for now.

I'm writing out the argument showing Paul's use of a juridical parable right now -- going through a draft to fix minor issues. The approach matches patterns of Nathan's in 2 Sam 12. This includes a first sense of the parable (i.e. Rom 1:18-32) as well as a second sense of it applicable to gentile Christians. Paul even shows one issue in 2:1 as that of judging -- which is what a juridical parable involves. But the letter has to be reviewed with a fresh look.
The fresh look (for me) shows that Paul shifts the discussion several times from 1:15-18. He says he wants to preach or teach the gospel to them (v15). Then verse 16 (not yet transitioning) confirms his interest and zeal for the gospel. Verse 17 narrows the focus on to the faith aspect and benefits. Verse 18 shows the judgment aspect of the gospel (see e.g., Schreiner, Romans1998, 77-78). Paul repeats that the gospel has judgment as part of it (2:16). Effectively verse 18 appears to continue teaching on the gospel. Yet, another transition happens. In 18b-31, Paul does not share how the wrath is being revealed. Instead, Paul just gives a history of an unnamed group of people who were godly (knew God per 18b-19) but progressively became worse. Even in vv 24-28 God passively let them wander further --if not passive, then it would be unusual to claim God was pushing them that direction. Only the unnatural relations of vv 26-27 may seem out of place regarding Jews but may be explained as part of a parable that also implicates some gentiles.
If all this is properly found to evoke the gentiles' judgmental inclination against Jews, then 2:1 reveals their judgmental attitude. In this case, Rom 1:1-17 may need to be read in a rhetorical sense with us doing a mirror reading.
The mention of their faith know throughout the world can first indicate they are known as "Christians" but second that their problems also have become known around the world. Paul's mention of the hindrances from coming but also his hope that God will let him come to them -- these likely appeal both to the Roman gentiles' feeling of isolation and rejection, especially visible in a fresh reading of the letter. Nor does Paul give room for the gentiles to feel like he would be coming there to rebuke them.
Consequently, the focus of Romans 1 is to lead them to the point at 2:1 where he can indirectly identify their negative treatment of Jews and to reveal their sinful behavior. This of course has been missed before and does not likely convince anyone with my simple arguments in this post. But I share it anyhow.

 

[TibiasDad]

That would be where you try to make an argument without any scriptural context

Cain and Abel is a scriptural context, and what follows is scriptural context of man being turned over to their own lusts…including up to the point that God destroyed the world by water because of the wickedness. The post flood reign of sin was muted, but still has increased steadily since Noah, man continually disregards his knowledge of God!

Doug

 

[mikesw]

Cain and Abel is a scriptural context, and what follows is scriptural context of man being turned over to their own lusts…including up to the point that God destroyed the world by water because of the wickedness. The post flood reign of sin was muted, but still has increased steadily since Noah, man continually disregards his knowledge of God!

Doug

Thanks for responding. It helps me think through the arguments better.
I did not claim that no one could justify a claim going back to Cain and Abel. The heart of the problem would be the explanation how the gentiles could recognize who or what Paul is talking about in 1:18-32. Paul has to share a message midway between the ideas he wants to share and the bits of knowledge the gentiles have so that they could recognize Paul's point. Secondly, Paul would not do well to speak blatantly in a derogatory sense about gentiles. They would know from the Jewish culture around them that Jews looked down on gentiles. The last thing they need is for Paul to do that too.
If proposing that 1:18b-19 speaks of the time of Cain and Abel, why should gentiles be judged for knowledge of God that no longer was common among gentiles? Also, if the gentiles fail to recognize the people of 1:18-32, the letter falls apart. Then the juridical parable flops. I will be showing how the juridical parable prepares the letter's recipients for all that follows. The parable becomes pretty evident by the all the elements that match up with Nathan's approach (2 Sam 12). It would be nearly impossible these elements would appear in 1:18-2:16 by chance.
Thus, it could be useful for people to reevaluate their concepts of 1:18-2:16. I know it is sort of like the optical illusion where you either see the old maid or the young lady.

 

[TibiasDad]

Thanks for responding. It helps me think through the arguments better.
I did not claim that no one could justify a claim going back to Cain and Abel. The heart of the problem would be the explanation how the gentiles could recognize who or what Paul is talking about in 1:18-32. Paul has to share a message midway between the ideas he wants to share and the bits of knowledge the gentiles have so that they could recognize Paul's point. Secondly, Paul would not do well to speak blatantly in a derogatory sense about gentiles. They would know from the Jewish culture around them that Jews looked down on gentiles. The last thing they need is for Paul to do that too.
If proposing that 1:18b-19 speaks of the time of Cain and Abel, why should gentiles be judged for knowledge of God that no longer was common among gentiles? Also, if the gentiles fail to recognize the people of 1:18-32, the letter falls apart. Then the juridical parable flops. I will be showing how the juridical parable prepares the letter's recipients for all that follows. The parable becomes pretty evident by the all the elements that match up with Nathan's approach (2 Sam 12). It would be nearly impossible these elements would appear in 1:18-2:16 by chance.
Thus, it could be useful for people to reevaluate their concepts of 1:18-2:16. I know it is sort of like the optical illusion where you either see the old maid or the young lady.

I have ordered Stower’s book and will see what he has to say.

Doug

 

[mikesw]

I have ordered Stower’s book and will see what he has to say.

Doug

The book is most helpful in arguing for sharing about a gentile-encoded audience. The idea of "encoded" is just that the wording always indicates gentiles but possibly the letter could have Jews reading it too.
The other good stuff is about Roman literary and cultural concepts. But he says 1:18-32 is about gentiles and then 2:1 is directed to gentiles. He also has the theory the gentiles were interested in this letter because they were seeking self-mastery. So not very conventional.

 

[Studyman]

Paul's use of the Nathan-David approach shows that the hatred of the Roman gentiles toward Jews would indicate that no Jews were among the original recipients of the letter. Although you are right about the principle that there was no distinction between Jew and gentile, Paul had to write the letter with that distinction due to the hatred of the Jews that developed in this gentile church.

There is nothing in Romans 1 or anywhere else, where the Body of Christ is called "A Gentile Church". And there was and is still no hatred in God's Church for the Jews. This hatred didn't come to be until Constantine created another religion "in Christ's Name". Jesus said Salvation is of the Jews". Paul would have known that. Romans 1-3 is a rebuke of the mainstream religions of Paul's time, "who profess to know God".

He is explaining what happened to them and why.

It really only was when there was some sort of issue around this divide of Jew and gentile that Paul had to use those distinctions in his letters. Paul's letter appeared to be successful in changing the attitude of the gentiles.

I wasn't the Gentiles that were preaching falsehoods about God, and teaching others to reject His Judgments and Laws and adopt their religious traditions instead.

What is missing here is that Paul had the mind of Christ. Therefore, he understood what happened to the mainstream religions of the world God placed him in. And he also understood the Law and Prophets that he calls "The Gospel of Christ" wherein it is written, "The Just shall live by Faith".

In this Gospel, that was written for our admonition, God's Righteous Judgments, Statutes and Laws are revealed. And also the wrath of God against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men is also revealed to us.

Paul is explaining what happens to religious men who know God, that is, they know His Righteousness Judgments and commands, and His Wrath against ungodliness and unrighteousness of men because HE has shown them. But they full well reject them so they can go live by their own judgments and laws and teach others to do the same. Or as Paul teaches, "Glorify Him NOT as God". What results in this behavior, is the religious system Paul describes which exists in mass, even to this day.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Image of God after the likeness of men) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who "knowing the judgment of God", that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

These men have always, and will always persecute, ridicule and belittle the "generation of the righteous" whose refuge is the Lord. Just as Cain persecuted Abel and for the same reasons. Paul explains how this religion falsely accused him in Romans 3, "Whose damnation is just". And He quotes David in the Gospel of Christ, (Ps. 5 and 14) to make the case against them. That "their throats are an open sepulcher".

He points out what happened to these men and asks, "Are we better than they"? Or, if we engage in the same behavior, will we not receive the same fate? NO!, in no wise are we better than they. And he already proved in Romans 2, that any man who engages in this lawless behavior, like the disobedient Jews were, is "STILL" under sin, both Jew and Gentile. (You can see where Paul "before proved" in Rom. 2:6-11)

I would advocate that men actually read and study the Holy Scriptures, in accordance to the Command of the Lord's Christ, the Jesus "of the bible". Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness".

Paul teaches that the Holy Scriptures which are Inspired by God, and trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Jesus said to "Take Heed" we are not deceived by deceivers who "come in His Name".

 

[civic]

There is nothing in Romans 1 or anywhere else, where the Body of Christ is called "A Gentile Church". And there was and is still no hatred in God's Church for the Jews. This hatred didn't come to be until Constantine created another religion "in Christ's Name". Jesus said Salvation is of the Jews". Paul would have known that. Romans 1-3 is a rebuke of the mainstream religions of Paul's time, "who profess to know God".

He is explaining what happened to them and why.



I wasn't the Gentiles that were preaching falsehoods about God, and teaching others to reject His Judgments and Laws and adopt their religious traditions instead.

What is missing here is that Paul had the mind of Christ. Therefore, he understood what happened to the mainstream religions of the world God placed him in. And he also understood the Law and Prophets that he calls "The Gospel of Christ" wherein it is written, "The Just shall live by Faith".

In this Gospel, that was written for our admonition, God's Righteous Judgments, Statutes and Laws are revealed. And also the wrath of God against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men is also revealed to us.

Paul is explaining what happens to religious men who know God, that is, they know His Righteousness Judgments and commands, and His Wrath against ungodliness and unrighteousness of men because HE has shown them. But they full well reject them so they can go live by their own judgments and laws and teach others to do the same. Or as Paul teaches, "Glorify Him NOT as God". What results in this behavior, is the religious system Paul describes which exists in mass, even to this day.



These men have always, and will always persecute, ridicule and belittle the "generation of the righteous" whose refuge is the Lord. Just as Cain persecuted Abel and for the same reasons. Paul explains how this religion falsely accused him in Romans 3, "Whose damnation is just". And He quotes David in the Gospel of Christ, (Ps. 5 and 14) to make the case against them. That "their throats are an open sepulcher".

He points out what happened to these men and asks, "Are we better than they"? Or, if we engage in the same behavior, will we not receive the same fate? NO!, in no wise are we better than they. And he already proved in Romans 2, that any man who engages in this lawless behavior, like the disobedient Jews were, is "STILL" under sin, both Jew and Gentile. (You can see where Paul "before proved" in Rom. 2:6-11)

I would advocate that men actually read and study the Holy Scriptures, in accordance to the Command of the Lord's Christ, the Jesus "of the bible". Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness".

Paul teaches that the Holy Scriptures which are Inspired by God, and trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Jesus said to "Take Heed" we are not deceived by deceivers who "come in His Name".

What you just described above sounds much like your beliefs. Religion over relationship, the letter of the law over the Lawgiver. Salvation by the works of the law apart from the gospel of grace.

 

[mikesw]

My purpose in sharing this theory comes from the excitement of finding it and figuring it is the best explanation for Rom 1:18-2:1. In my own notes, I have the concepts that open up the whole letter to understanding based on the letter plus the historical context. Both work together to give a reasonable understanding of the letter. One writer, Wolfgang Wieful in "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome" (in The Romans Debate), provides a great recreation of the situation in Rome. And Andrew Das's Solving the Romans Debate is important too (but mainly for the gentile audience details and the Claudius edict).
I'm aware of the general trends of interpretation. So I'm mainly hoping people either like the explanation I provide or have good questions to see if there are problems with my thinking on it. I also have figured out proofs of various elements of this theory. My ideas therefore are not just wild concepts lacking foundation.

 

[mikesw]

I have been solving and explaining various passages in Galatians and Romans, not that anyone has to automatically accept the ideas. However, I did imagine that the sharing of these solutions (and sometimes with more explanation) that a number of people would accept the ideas or would even have some reasons to share why my explanation is insufficient.
In my analyses I tend to find issues that commentators do not properly address. One is conditional questions, like in Rom 2:3-4 and Gal 2:14. There is one explanation that every commentator gives, namely these are rhetorical questions with an obvious answer. However, the text really is not explained well by simply converting these verses to assertions. At minimum (if we weakly assume these to be assertions), the questions are raised as accusations or indictments. In Romans 2, people treat these questions as an address to a rhetorical partner instead of to each who makes a judgment in the scenario. In Gal 2:14, there is only a momentary irony shared -- of Peter living like gentiles while leading gentiles to follow Christ (who arises out of the promise of Judaism -- or more accurately of the promises to Abraham and Isaac and Israel).

 

[Swordman]

I'm writing out the argument showing Paul's use of a juridical parable right now -- going through a draft to fix minor issues. The approach matches patterns of Nathan's in 2 Sam 12. This includes a first sense of the parable (i.e. Rom 1:18-32) as well as a second sense of it applicable to gentile Christians. Paul even shows one issue in 2:1 as that of judging -- which is what a juridical parable involves. But the letter has to be reviewed with a fresh look.
The fresh look (for me) shows that Paul shifts the discussion several times from 1:15-18. He says he wants to preach or teach the gospel to them (v15). Then verse 16 (not yet transitioning) confirms his interest and zeal for the gospel. Verse 17 narrows the focus on to the faith aspect and benefits. Verse 18 shows the judgment aspect of the gospel (see e.g., Schreiner, Romans1998, 77-78). Paul repeats that the gospel has judgment as part of it (2:16). Effectively verse 18 appears to continue teaching on the gospel. Yet, another transition happens. In 18b-31, Paul does not share how the wrath is being revealed. Instead, Paul just gives a history of an unnamed group of people who were godly (knew God per 18b-19) but progressively became worse. Even in vv 24-28 God passively let them wander further --if not passive, then it would be unusual to claim God was pushing them that direction. Only the unnatural relations of vv 26-27 may seem out of place regarding Jews but may be explained as part of a parable that also implicates some gentiles.
If all this is properly found to evoke the gentiles' judgmental inclination against Jews, then 2:1 reveals their judgmental attitude. In this case, Rom 1:1-17 may need to be read in a rhetorical sense with us doing a mirror reading.
The mention of their faith know throughout the world can first indicate they are known as "Christians" but second that their problems also have become known around the world. Paul's mention of the hindrances from coming but also his hope that God will let him come to them -- these likely appeal both to the Roman gentiles' feeling of isolation and rejection, especially visible in a fresh reading of the letter. Nor does Paul give room for the gentiles to feel like he would be coming there to rebuke them.
Consequently, the focus of Romans 1 is to lead them to the point at 2:1 where he can indirectly identify their negative treatment of Jews and to reveal their sinful behavior. This of course has been missed before and does not likely convince anyone with my simple arguments in this post. But I share it anyhow.

Looks interesting. I would be interested in reading your final product, but not before December. I am buried for the next few months.

 

[mikesw]

Looks interesting. I would be interested in reading your final product, but not before December. I am buried for the next few months.

Sounds good. I'm not sure what I will have for a final product. I may try for a book on the first 3 chapters of Romans if I get the opportunity to do that. It tends to be hard to get people's interest in a new look at something in scripture because they can think everything is perfectly settled and they can be suspicious what angle someone is taking.

 

[Swordman]

Sounds good. I'm not sure what I will have for a final product. I may try for a book on the first 3 chapters of Romans if I get the opportunity to do that. It tends to be hard to get people's interest in a new look at something in scripture because they can think everything is perfectly settled and they can be suspicious what angle someone is taking.

We are covering the first three chapters with the course that begins at my church on Oct. 17.

Course Resources: HTRRIC — Lansdowne Alliance Church

Courses: How To Read Romans In Context

www.lansdownealliance.com

 

[DavidTree]

There is nothing in Romans 1 or anywhere else, where the Body of Christ is called "A Gentile Church". And there was and is still no hatred in God's Church for the Jews. This hatred didn't come to be until Constantine created another religion "in Christ's Name". Jesus said Salvation is of the Jews". Paul would have known that. Romans 1-3 is a rebuke of the mainstream religions of Paul's time, "who profess to know God".

He is explaining what happened to them and why.



I wasn't the Gentiles that were preaching falsehoods about God, and teaching others to reject His Judgments and Laws and adopt their religious traditions instead.

What is missing here is that Paul had the mind of Christ. Therefore, he understood what happened to the mainstream religions of the world God placed him in. And he also understood the Law and Prophets that he calls "The Gospel of Christ" wherein it is written, "The Just shall live by Faith".

In this Gospel, that was written for our admonition, God's Righteous Judgments, Statutes and Laws are revealed. And also the wrath of God against the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men is also revealed to us.

Paul is explaining what happens to religious men who know God, that is, they know His Righteousness Judgments and commands, and His Wrath against ungodliness and unrighteousness of men because HE has shown them. But they full well reject them so they can go live by their own judgments and laws and teach others to do the same. Or as Paul teaches, "Glorify Him NOT as God". What results in this behavior, is the religious system Paul describes which exists in mass, even to this day.



These men have always, and will always persecute, ridicule and belittle the "generation of the righteous" whose refuge is the Lord. Just as Cain persecuted Abel and for the same reasons. Paul explains how this religion falsely accused him in Romans 3, "Whose damnation is just". And He quotes David in the Gospel of Christ, (Ps. 5 and 14) to make the case against them. That "their throats are an open sepulcher".

He points out what happened to these men and asks, "Are we better than they"? Or, if we engage in the same behavior, will we not receive the same fate? NO!, in no wise are we better than they. And he already proved in Romans 2, that any man who engages in this lawless behavior, like the disobedient Jews were, is "STILL" under sin, both Jew and Gentile. (You can see where Paul "before proved" in Rom. 2:6-11)

I would advocate that men actually read and study the Holy Scriptures, in accordance to the Command of the Lord's Christ, the Jesus "of the bible". Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness".

Paul teaches that the Holy Scriptures which are Inspired by God, and trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Jesus said to "Take Heed" we are not deceived by deceivers who "come in His Name".

Excellent post

 

[DavidTree]

What you just described above sounds much like your beliefs. Religion over relationship, the letter of the law over the Lawgiver. Salvation by the works of the law apart from the gospel of grace.

i did not see that in post 50

Now, you most likely have been viewing many more then myself as i only had a very limited interaction back when he was trying to change the meaning of Jer 31:31-34

 

[civic]

i did not see that in post 50

Now, you most likely have been viewing many more then myself as i only had a very limited interaction back when he was trying to change the meaning of Jer 31:31-34

That was addressed to studyman who attaches works to salvation. Good works is a result not the means or addition to faith in the gospel of our salvation. Genuine faith will produce good works/ fruit.

 

[DavidTree]

That was addressed to studyman who attaches works to salvation. Good works is a result not the means or addition to faith in the gospel of our salvation. Genuine faith will produce good works/ fruit.

Correct
After we recieve the free Gift of Salvation by His Grace thru faith, God prepares His good works for us to walk in as a BENEFIT to our growth in Christ.