Romans - Outside In

[Swordman]

If anyone is interested, I am going to be teaching Romans starting in October at my church (Lansdowne Alliance Church in Maryland). This will be an open discussion with the purpose of teaching basic hermeneutics. The goal is to rethink how we approach Paul's letters and to try to "hear" the letter in a way that would be similar to how the first audience heard it. I use the term "hear" because that is the way the first audience encountered the letter.

We are planning to put this online, with interaction via chat. Cheat sheets and work sheets will be supplied and we plan on posting short lectures on various topics.

We are breaking the larger course down into four parts of six to eight sessions each. We will be covering the first part of Romans with a survey of the letter and chapters 1-3 (maybe 4 also, but it might be hard to fit it into six weeks). The goal of this first round is to understand how context affects interpretation.

We will follow up next year with part 2 (Romans 4-8 in the spring) and part 3 (Romans 9-11 in the fall), with the final part (Romans 12-16) in early 2025. In each part, we will discuss issues that may affect interpretation.

This is oriented towards the church (any church) and is open to all who want to participate. I have already had a few people who have asked that we put this online, so we are planning on doing that. It is free, if that is a question.

I am not sure whether I am allowed to post this here, but given the importance of Romans in the discussion of this group, I wanted to offer it up. We also will post this on Facebook and elsewhere. Updates will be on Facebook.

 

[Administrator]

Sounds good to me. I love Paul's letter to the Romans!

 

[Swordman]

As full disclosure, this is part of a thesis project for Northern Seminary in their DMin program, which is why I am only covering Rom 1-3 this year. However, we (the church) do want to continue this next year as part of our discipleship program.

 

[synergy]

If anyone is interested, I am going to be teaching Romans starting in October at my church (Lansdowne Alliance Church in Maryland). This will be an open discussion with the purpose of teaching basic hermeneutics. The goal is to rethink how we approach Paul's letters and to try to "hear" the letter in a way that would be similar to how the first audience heard it. I use the term "hear" because that is the way the first audience encountered the letter.

We are planning to put this online, with interaction via chat. Cheat sheets and work sheets will be supplied and we plan on posting short lectures on various topics.

We are breaking the larger course down into four parts of six to eight sessions each. We will be covering the first part of Romans with a survey of the letter and chapters 1-3 (maybe 4 also, but it might be hard to fit it into six weeks). The goal of this first round is to understand how context affects interpretation.

We will follow up next year with part 2 (Romans 4-8 in the spring) and part 3 (Romans 9-11 in the fall), with the final part (Romans 12-16) in early 2025. In each part, we will discuss issues that may affect interpretation.

This is oriented towards the church (any church) and is open to all who want to participate. I have already had a few people who have asked that we put this online, so we are planning on doing that. It is free, if that is a question.

I am not sure whether I am allowed to post this here, but given the importance of Romans in the discussion of this group, I wanted to offer it up. We also will post this on Facebook and elsewhere. Updates will be on Facebook.

This sounds very interesting. I read in many of your comments, within other threads, that you put great emphasis on knowing who the audience is for that particular epistle, chapter, or verse. I wholeheartedly agree in that there is great value in doing so. With that in mind, I came across some information that many of the Jews (if not all) were expelled from Rome because of the scuffles that happened between Christians and Jews around the time Paul wrote Romans. The Roman authorities just took the quickest route to quell the situation and just expelled Jews. I'd be interested in getting your thoughts about all this.

Something About the Book of Romans that will Help You Really "Get" It

Here’s something that many people I talk to about Paul’s Letter to the Romans don’t seem yet to have grasped. The earliest house churches in Rome would have been primarily Jewish and would have culturally felt Jewish, but in A.D. 49 the Roman Emperor Claudius kicked the Jews out...

www.biola.edu

 

[Swordman]

This sounds very interesting. I read in many of your comments, within other threads, that you put great emphasis on knowing who the audience is for that particular epistle, chapter, or verse. I wholeheartedly agree in that there is great value in doing so. With that in mind, I came across some information that many of the Jews (if not all) were expelled from Rome because of the scuffles that happened between Christians and Jews around the time Paul wrote Romans. The Roman authorities just took the quickest route to quell the situation and just expelled Jews. I'd be interested in getting your thoughts about all this.

Something About the Book of Romans that will Help You Really "Get" It

Here’s something that many people I talk to about Paul’s Letter to the Romans don’t seem yet to have grasped. The earliest house churches in Rome would have been primarily Jewish and would have culturally felt Jewish, but in A.D. 49 the Roman Emperor Claudius kicked the Jews out...

www.biola.edu

I think it would have been just the Christian Jews who were expelled. The broader Jewish population of Rome has been estimated up to 40,000 people, so that would have been a sizable exile, reducing the labor force significantly. Jews also had more influence in Rome that made many Romans uncomfortable, but the influence was noted. Exiling the Christian Jews would have been a compromise that restored the peace.

 

[synergy]

I think it would have been just the Christian Jews who were expelled. The broader Jewish population of Rome has been estimated up to 40,000 people, so that would have been a sizable exile, reducing the labor force significantly. Jews also had more influence in Rome that made many Romans uncomfortable, but the influence was noted. Exiling the Christian Jews would have been a compromise that restored the peace.

It does make sense that it was only the Jews that were involved in the scuffles that were expelled. So the overwhelmingly majority of the Roman congregation became Gentiles who were more inclined to believe that Jesus is God. The tide turned several centuries afterwards when the majority of Christians came under the Judaizing heresy of Arianism. How that happened, I'm not sure.

The Epistle to the Romans is a massive source of spiritual knowledge and its historical context helps us understand it even more.

 

[Swordman]

It does make sense that it was only the Jews that were involved in the scuffles that were expelled. So the overwhelmingly majority of the Roman congregation became Gentiles who were more inclined to believe that Jesus is God. The tide turned several centuries afterwards when the majority of Christians came under the Judaizing heresy of Arianism. How that happened, I'm not sure.

The Epistle to the Romans is a massive source of spiritual knowledge and its historical context helps us understand it even more.

Why would the Gentiles be more inclined to believe Jesus is God?

The majority of the Christian congregations would become Gentiles because the Jewish Christians were forced to leave. That would leave only Gentile proselytes (to Christianity) who withdrew from the synagogue community to form their own house churches.

What Paul is trying to do is restore the unity among the believers since the Jewish believers were returning (or had returned) to Rome.

 

[mikesw]

I have been working on a paper that recognizes that Paul wrote solely to persuade gentiles, as found in the introduction of the letter. Also, weak assumptions were utilized when saying 1:18-32 is about gentiles. My first point against that is that in 1:18b-19, the people had to have special knowledge about God so they could initially honor him. This would be Jews who first came to know God at Mt. Sinai. Verse 20 then shows that special revelation is augmented by the evidence of God's greatness via nature. Then verse 21 shows, despite knowing God, they chose to dishonor him.
Then in 2:1, Paul points to the guilt of gentiles due in part to their judgmental attitude toward Jews which is also vaguely seen in Rom 11:17-18. Paul uses a juridical parable just like Nathan's approach with David in 2 Sam 12. The gentiles then recognize how 1:18-32 described them as well.

 

[mikesw]

It does make sense that it was only the Jews that were involved in the scuffles that were expelled. So the overwhelmingly majority of the Roman congregation became Gentiles who were more inclined to believe that Jesus is God. The tide turned several centuries afterwards when the majority of Christians came under the Judaizing heresy of Arianism. How that happened, I'm not sure.

The Epistle to the Romans is a massive source of spiritual knowledge and its historical context helps us understand it even more.

It is better to note that the unrest was between non-Christian Jewish leaders ( and maybe many common Jews) and the Christian Jews. I think I read that the Jewish leaders worked with Rome official to convey that things would calm down if the Jewish Christians were expelled.

A little note for Swordman... I see you interacted some on my thread on Rom 1:18-2:1. My paper is covering more evidence of the apparently weak assumptions made by the interpreters of the passage for all this time. As you teach on Romans, at least you will know that it is more or less along the lines that it has been read all these years. Not many people would have a complaint for you doing that much. One point I can say for my analysis of Romans is that transitions of understanding do happen. Martin Luther brought forth a few changes of understanding of Romans in the 1500s, if memory serves.

 

[synergy]

Why would the Gentiles be more inclined to believe Jesus is God?

The majority of the Christian congregations would become Gentiles because the Jewish Christians were forced to leave. That would leave only Gentile proselytes (to Christianity) who withdrew from the synagogue community to form their own house churches.

What Paul is trying to do is restore the unity among the believers since the Jewish believers were returning (or had returned) to Rome.

The Greeks already had some form of a Logos understanding. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st century Greek-Speaking Jewish Philosopher, went a step further and tried to teach that the Logos was the intermediary between God and the world, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which man can apprehend God.

 

[mikesw]

It does make sense that it was only the Jews that were involved in the scuffles that were expelled. So the overwhelmingly majority of the Roman congregation became Gentiles who were more inclined to believe that Jesus is God. The tide turned several centuries afterwards when the majority of Christians came under the Judaizing heresy of Arianism. How that happened, I'm not sure.

The Epistle to the Romans is a massive source of spiritual knowledge and its historical context helps us understand it even more.

Where does the divinity of Christ become a concept in Romans?

 

[mikesw]

As full disclosure, this is part of a thesis project for Northern Seminary in their DMin program, which is why I am only covering Rom 1-3 this year. However, we (the church) do want to continue this next year as part of our discipleship program.

What's your thesis issue being investigated or the nature of the research topic?

 

[synergy]

Where does the divinity of Christ become a concept in Romans?

Rom 9:5 comes to mind .

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my [a]countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

 

[mikesw]

Rom 9:5 comes to mind .

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my [a]countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

oops. I did forget that verse. If I remembered that one, I would have asked where is there a misconception. I see how you might have based your comment on gentiles accepting the deity of Christ easier. Thanks for mentioning this point. I have tended to reflect on the broader argument of Rom 9 -11 such that I miss the implications of Rom 9:5

 

[synergy]

oops. I did forget that verse. If I remembered that one, I would have asked where is there a misconception. I see how you might have based your comment on gentiles accepting the deity of Christ easier. Thanks for mentioning this point. I have tended to reflect on the broader argument of Rom 9 -11 such that I miss the implications of Rom 9:5

The Greeks were also open to philosophical thoughts. They already had some form of a Logos understanding. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st century Greek-Speaking Jewish Philosopher, went a step further and tried to teach that the Logos was the intermediary between God and the world, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which man can apprehend God. Apostle John took the Logos term and assigned it to Christ himself.

 

[Swordman]

What's your thesis issue being investigated or the nature of the research topic?

Again a full disclosure: I have a PhD in Biblical Studies and my thesis for that is found in my book Mercy for All (click on the name for the link). That was a research project based on my interpretation of Rom. 11:25-32 as a mission imperative for the Gentiles, with a focus on the Judaism of Paul the Apostle. That was a research study.

The DMin is more church-oriented and this is a study on interpretation in the church. This is the first of about 10 preparatory studies we are trying to implement in a church to prepare church leaders. DMin degrees (at least at Northern) are not always about finding something new, but about what we do and how we approach ministry. Many may disagree with me, but I would place a DMin between a MDiv (or other master's programs) and a PhD.

My study for the DMin is designed to approach our reading from the broader context to the specifics of the text. Too often we tend to proof-text passages to prove a point. I want the participants of the study to "hear" the text (in their native language, of course) the way the original audience might have heard it. The original audience would hear the text read rather than read it. But they would hear it through their own cultural paradigms.

 

[Swordman]

I have been working on a paper that recognizes that Paul wrote solely to persuade gentiles, as found in the introduction of the letter. Also, weak assumptions were utilized when saying 1:18-32 is about gentiles. My first point against that is that in 1:18b-19, the people had to have special knowledge about God so they could initially honor him. This would be Jews who first came to know God at Mt. Sinai. Verse 20 then shows that special revelation is augmented by the evidence of God's greatness via nature. Then verse 21 shows, despite knowing God, they chose to dishonor him.
Then in 2:1, Paul points to the guilt of gentiles due in part to their judgmental attitude toward Jews which is also vaguely seen in Rom 11:17-18. Paul uses a juridical parable just like Nathan's approach with David in 2 Sam 12. The gentiles then recognize how 1:18-32 described them as well.

You should probably read my book Mercy for All. Also, for this view Andrew Das has a good book on the "Gentile-only" audience (Solving the Romans Debate). I do not agree with Das in full, but would affirm they are the primary audience.

 

[mikesw]

You should probably read my book Mercy for All. Also, for this view Andrew Das has a good book on the "Gentile-only" audience (Solving the Romans Debate). I do not agree with Das in full, but would affirm they are the primary audience.

I was about to recommend Das' book. I found his book around 2007 after discovering the recipients as only being gentile. I found this after reflecting on Rom 2:1 for awhile when trying to figure out why Paul accused them of judging. Das works with the concept of the encoded audience being solely gentiles. I share the encoded audience and intended audience is only gentiles due to the severity of the attitude Paul addresses in Rom 1:18-2:1. I also show how 1:18-32 points essentially to a simplified history of the decline of the Jewish/Israel civilization. He uses this as the way to expose the gentile's negative attitude toward Jews.

 

[mikesw]

Again a full disclosure: I have a PhD in Biblical Studies and my thesis for that is found in my book Mercy for All (click on the name for the link). That was a research project based on my interpretation of Rom. 11:25-32 as a mission imperative for the Gentiles, with a focus on the Judaism of Paul the Apostle. That was a research study.

The DMin is more church-oriented and this is a study on interpretation in the church. This is the first of about 10 preparatory studies we are trying to implement in a church to prepare church leaders. DMin degrees (at least at Northern) are not always about finding something new, but about what we do and how we approach ministry. Many may disagree with me, but I would place a DMin between a MDiv (or other master's programs) and a PhD.

My study for the DMin is designed to approach our reading from the broader context to the specifics of the text. Too often we tend to proof-text passages to prove a point. I want the participants of the study to "hear" the text (in their native language, of course) the way the original audience might have heard it. The original audience would hear the text read rather than read it. But they would hear it through their own cultural paradigms.

Thanks for sharing about your ministry education. I'm familiar with the Dmin since our pastor just finished that. I have a MA Theology mostly to work on my writing and somewhat to make sure I was not following anything heretical. My recommendation for anyone wanting to deeply understand Paul's letters to churches is to begin a project by reading through the letter while making an outline of it. Do this in a fairly short time such as 3 days to a week. This becomes your first impression -- but is aided if you are a bit familiar with the contents. Then check with the commentaries to see which seem to offer the best explanation --even if your outline is not quite refined.
If you want to read Romans like the original audience, take on the mindset that Jews lost their chance to be saved and no hope exists for them. Then read with suspicion of Paul's status and of his intent behind the letter. I'm currently writing how this plays out in Rom 1:15 to 2:1. Try to review 1:18b to 31 as it may be read to speak of the history of Israel.

 

[Swordman]

Thanks for sharing about your ministry education. I'm familiar with the Dmin since our pastor just finished that. I have a MA Theology mostly to work on my writing and somewhat to make sure I was not following anything heretical. My recommendation for anyone wanting to deeply understand Paul's letters to churches is to begin a project by reading through the letter while making an outline of it. Do this in a fairly short time such as 3 days to a week. This becomes your first impression -- but is aided if you are a bit familiar with the contents. Then check with the commentaries to see which seem to offer the best explanation --even if your outline is not quite refined.
If you want to read Romans like the original audience, take on the mindset that Jews lost their chance to be saved and no hope exists for them. Then read with suspicion of Paul's status and of his intent behind the letter. I'm currently writing how this plays out in Rom 1:15 to 2:1. Try to review 1:18b to 31 as it may be read to speak of the history of Israel.

One thing I am recommending for the first session is to "hear" the letter in full. There are several ways to do this but a simple (and free) approach is to use the Blue Letter Bible online system that has an audio reading of the text. It runs about an hour and a quarter for the whole letter.

Romans Chapter 1

English Standard Version: Romans Chapter 1 @ Blue Letter Bible

www.blueletterbible.org