Romans - Outside In

[Swordman]

I explained what I said. I never denied memorizing books. A sentence. Sure. A paragraph maybe. 10s of thousands of lines. NO. So don't misconstrue what I said.



My problem is always the same. Mistakes. Errors. Wrong information endless repeated to the point they become fact.



I pointed you in the right direction. Papyrus has been used for at least 5 thousands years. We have no idea who invented it. We only know that ancient Egyptians used it. We know what Enoch "The seventh from Adam" wrote a book that survived the flood. Papyrus wasn't expense. Your false narrative is deceitful because you insist that papyrus cost too much money for the average person to buy. You have no idea. You're just repeat nonsense without thoughts of how you could be wrong. In fact, you purposely spoke of parchment to avoid papyrus. You did so to drive you own false narrative.

There were many readers. Fewer writers. Most anyone could read. It was requirement in every civilization that had any form of government. Those are the facts. Most anyone could read. It takes significant time learn how to write and some didn't learn to write. You have no idea how many made the transition.

If what you say is true, then poor ole shepherd boy David couldn't write. We know better. If an Atheist says anything, I'm always skeptical. I've even skeptical if a Christian says it. I'm asking you to think for yourself. If there is anything you should do... it is think for yourself.



No it is not. Any AI only has limited information and nothing more than a search engine with a purposely limited "vocabulary" on most any subject. You're too trusting and you're teaching others to accept your methodology. In fact, you are becoming the problem. Everyone that promotes normalization of knowledge is the problem. No AI can contain the vast information of knowledge known through all various cultures and society. Christians have always lived in the minority and helding truths this world rejects.

Do you know what normalization is? Ask your AI.

That is what has happened throughout every civilization. They all start with organizing while accepting each others differences. Loving and caring about one another usually around a common goal that is more important than their differences. That fact is soon lost in peaceful times. Soon people begin trying to control everyone else. Sometimes it happens very quickly and sometimes it takes hundreds of years but their uniqueness is abandoned and everyone starts repeating the same things over and over again. Without competition for the narrative, everything becomes a lie or a half truth without detail enough to argue otherwise.

It is happening again in the US and AI will help foster that change over to a single narrative without any thought otherwise.

I do not depend entirely on AI. I am actually rather new to it and have been experimenting with it.

It does allow you to ask for sources and it will give you a list.

 

[Swordman]

Next Thursday is our fifth session, counting the introduction. We will be covering Romans 2:1-24.

My goal is to explain the rhetorical situation and the interlocutor - Paul's rhetorical adversary. Of course, I am going to give my view.

We will also cover the text and see how this applies.

My approach to the rhetorical situation follows Lloyd Bitzer's model. While this is from the 1960s, it seems to be the basis for modern expansion of the model and its simplicity makes it a good framework for discussion.

Any suggestions or feedback are appreciated.

Online attendance has remained steady at about 12 to 15 people. In-person attendance has dropped the past two weeks. Maybe we need to supply pizza.

We will take a break after this coming session for ETS/SBL and Thanksgiving.

Thanks to all who attended and contributed.

 

[mikesw]

Next Thursday is our fifth session, counting the introduction. We will be covering Romans 2:1-24.

My goal is to explain the rhetorical situation and the interlocutor - Paul's rhetorical adversary. Of course, I am going to give my view.

We will also cover the text and see how this applies.

My approach to the rhetorical situation follows Lloyd Bitzer's model. While this is from the 1960s, it seems to be the basis for modern expansion of the model and its simplicity makes it a good framework for discussion.

Any suggestions or feedback are appreciated.

Online attendance has remained steady at about 12 to 15 people. In-person attendance has dropped the past two weeks. Maybe we need to supply pizza.

We will take a break after this coming session for ETS/SBL and Thanksgiving.

Thanks to all who attended and contributed.

It would help for the examination of 2:1 to ask how 1:18-32 can affect one's mood. I think it reads like a hell-fire and brimstone message. The turn-around in 2:1 then exposes the juridical parable. Imagine the force of being exposed for this judgmental mood. This seems to be what Sanday and Headlam notice but only do so without recognizing a full application of the juridical parable, namely of revealing the guilt of judging and of certain sins of the recipients. It was interesting your naming of a person holding to the view of the juridical parable here.
You can also ask how the text of Rom 2 could have a different meaning if the letter is only written to gentiles or if Rom 2 is addressing actual problems instead of just an awkward teaching approach.
Now the Bitzer model looks interesting when applied to Romans since the letter applies to an actual situation. A quick check on Vatz's approach is that he does not seem to have a good fit for a letter addressing real situations. Anyhow, the best the models could do is maybe to help shift around the pieces until they make sense. The model may only be the basic element to aid understanding. Romans does not reveal itself readily under any model of analysis.
As to the sharing of the Hellenization and Honor-Shame, these maybe help in minor ways but seemed a bit off topic for a general audience. In reality though, Paul uses the juridical parable to avoid shaming the gentiles. However, Paul leads the gentiles to self-accusation without them being the ultimate judge over their lives. So there is a subtle aid of the honor-shame topic in a deep study.
So that is enough for my backseat driving. It is good that you get to teach this and that you have the students ready to participate.

 

[mikesw]

One thing that keeps popping up in my studies concerns the handling of questions. In Rom 2:3-4, Paul poses two questions. These can be perceived as a rebuke based on an inferred statement derived from the question or the questions can be a challenge for the recipient's to ask of their own situation, especially in light of the Nathan-David approach. I've been slowly writing out the analysis of 2:1-16 based on the latter. There are intricate details of Paul's persuasion that help us see how clever Paul's approach is.

 

[Behold]

Lesson learned from last night - Don't schedule a session on Halloween.

1.) What is your belief... your teaching, .. regarding the "5-points" of Calvinism?

2.) Do you believe you can lose your Salvation?

3.) Do you believe that Acts 2:38 is the "Gospel" "in the time of the Gentiles"?

 

[mikesw]

As to the sharing of the Hellenization and Honor-Shame, these maybe help in minor ways but seemed a bit off topic for a general audience. In reality though, Paul uses the juridical parable to avoid shaming the gentiles. However, Paul leads the gentiles to self-accusation without them being the ultimate judge over their lives. So there is a subtle aid of the honor-shame topic in a deep study.
So that is enough for my backseat driving. It is good that you get to teach this and that you have the students ready to participate.

@Swordman
I guess it will help to see how you use these issues when leading people through these first 3 chapters. I'm a bit quick to react to ideas that do not seem to fit but may still fit in someone's reading of the text.

 

[Swordman]

1.) What is your belief... your teaching, .. regarding the "5-points" of Calvinism?

2.) Do you believe you can lose your Salvation?

3.) Do you believe that Acts 2:38 is the "Gospel" "in the time of the Gentiles"?

1. I am not a Calvinist, although I count them as kindred in Christ. You might call me a Zero-point Calvinist.

2. Yes. Of course that depends on what you mean by salvation. I have met people (including relatives) who once believed, were baptized, and ultimately rejected Christ. How are we to judge these people at any point in time? At the time of their conversion, I would have said they were saved. At the time of their rejection, I would say they are lost. Scripture deals with this in various ways, but even Calvin struggled with it.

If you are viewing salvation from the endpoint, our future redemption, then no one can know they are saved until that point in time. Even Calvin suggested that there were those who thought they were saved, participated in the church, but fell away eventually. (All in God's plan.) It is best to view salvation from its effects on us today - we are saved from the power of sin.

3. The gospel is about a person, not about whether I am saved or not. It is about the resurrection and Lordship of Christ.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, . . . (Rom. 1:1–4).​

While it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), the message itself is not about me. It is about our Lord.

As for the "time of the Gentiles," you would have to explain what you mean by that.

 

[Swordman]

@Swordman
I guess it will help to see how you use these issues when leading people through these first 3 chapters. I'm a bit quick to react to ideas that do not seem to fit but may still fit in someone's reading of the text.

Follow along and feel free to comment. Jeff is monitoring the online (and the booth), so he will generally call out when there is a question or comment. Thursday we discuss the effects of 49 AD.

We all approached these chapters with certain paradigms in play. Let's see how they pan out.

 

[Swordman]

A few comments from last night. That is the last session until December 5, when we will pick up on the Judaism of Paul the apostle.

We covered the edict of Claudius and its effects on the Christian community last night, using Romans 2 as a means of seeing the tension between groups - Christian Gentiles, Christian Jews, and the synagogue community.

I am recommending the group view a video by Ben Witherington that summarizes where we are at with the study.

 

[Swordman]

@Swordman
I guess it will help to see how you use these issues when leading people through these first 3 chapters. I'm a bit quick to react to ideas that do not seem to fit but may still fit in someone's reading of the text.

Mike, Last night you mentioned in the online comments that "the synagogue would still reject all Christians in AD 57." I do not think I agree, but I want to hear your reasons.

Thanks.

 

[mikesw]

Mike, Last night you mentioned in the online comments that "the synagogue would still reject all Christians in AD 57." I do not think I agree, but I want to hear your reasons.

Thanks.

Claudius made his edict of AD49 because of hostilities between Jews following Christ and those who did not. I share further that many Jews (non-Christians) remaining in Rome continued their hostility but now were focused on gentile Christians. This verbal persecution is about the need to do works -- which Paul counters in Rom 3:9-4:2, with the clues found in 3:27 ("where then is boasting") and 4:1-2, which indirectly rebukes or rejects the boasting by those non-Christian Jews. (I have a hundred page paper on 4:1-2 to explain this rebuke. It is about a rebuke against the boasting of these Jews but shared only to the gentile Christians.) In Acts 28:17ff, it appears the crowd Paul had been totally separated from followers of Christ but not hostile. So no reconciliation of Jewish Christians to the synagogues happened. If we assumed 1% of Jews were following Christ in Rome before the expulsion, their presence had been pretty low before AD49. Their return to Rome would be fewer in number and less noticeable.
My thought for now is that these Jewish followers could only worship in the home gatherings. Maybe some could attend synagogue inconspicuously by avoiding mention of Christ. But, the reality is that the synagogues and Christ-followers were totally separated. Of course, many other details of Romans have to be understood differently so this all makes sense.

 

[Swordman]

Claudius made his edict of AD49 because of hostilities between Jews following Christ and those who did not. I share further that many Jews (non-Christians) remaining in Rome continued their hostility but now were focused on gentile Christians. This verbal persecution is about the need to do works -- which Paul counters in Rom 3:9-4:2, with the clues found in 3:27 ("where then is boasting") and 4:1-2, which indirectly rebukes or rejects the boasting by those non-Christian Jews. (I have a hundred page paper on 4:1-2 to explain this rebuke. It is about a rebuke against the boasting of these Jews but shared only to the gentile Christians.) In Acts 28:17ff, it appears the crowd Paul had been totally separated from followers of Christ but not hostile. So no reconciliation of Jewish Christians to the synagogues happened. If we assumed 1% of Jews were following Christ in Rome before the expulsion, their presence had been pretty low before AD49. Their return to Rome would be fewer in number and less noticeable.
My thought for now is that these Jewish followers could only worship in the home gatherings. Maybe some could attend synagogue inconspicuously by avoiding mention of Christ. But, the reality is that the synagogues and Christ-followers were totally separated. Of course, many other details of Romans have to be understood differently so this all makes sense.

Unless the boasting is on the part of the Gentiles - "branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." They also pose the question - what is the benefit of circumcision? For them, Jews had their chance, as Witherington states it.

Paul's separation in Rome was because he was under house arrest, but he did interact with believers.

And so we came to Rome. 15 The believers (brothers) from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. (Acts 28:14b–15).​

He also interacts with the unbelieving Jews who say:

21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken anything evil about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.”
(28:21–22).​

So I do not quite see this the way you do. In Acts 28:17ff, Paul is speaking of the events in Jerusalem, but the Jews in Rome seem to be unaware of what took place, although they are aware of the movement of the Christ-followers.

It seems to me that in order for Paul to establish the universal character of the gospel in Romans (written before his trip to Rome), he needs to establish that the Jews have not been cut off. It is not Jews or Gentiles who are being saved. It is both.

That is it for now, until after Thanksgiving.

 

[mikesw]

Unless the boasting is on the part of the Gentiles - "branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." They also pose the question - what is the benefit of circumcision? For them, Jews had their chance, as Witherington states it.

Paul's separation in Rome was because he was under house arrest, but he did interact with believers.

And so we came to Rome. 15 The believers (brothers) from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. (Acts 28:14b–15).​

He also interacts with the unbelieving Jews who say:

21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken anything evil about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.”​

(28:21–22).​

So I do not quite see this the way you do. In Acts 28:17ff, Paul is speaking of the events in Jerusalem, but the Jews in Rome seem to be unaware of what took place, although they are aware of the movement of the Christ-followers.

It seems to me that in order for Paul to establish the universal character of the gospel in Romans (written before his trip to Rome), he needs to establish that the Jews have not been cut off. It is not Jews or Gentiles who are being saved. It is both.

That is it for now, until after Thanksgiving.

I noted that Romans has to be read differently from the beginning, especially when recognizing a gentile-only audience.

 

[Swordman]

I noted that Romans has to be read differently from the beginning, especially when recognizing a gentile-only audience.

While I agree that Gentiles are primary, I do not believe they are the sole audience. It is not just that Gentiles need to receive Jews. Jewish believers (and non-believers) need to receive the Gentile God-fearers and proselytes back into the community. Audiences can be somewhat complex in ancient times and a rhetor often spoke not just to his direct audience, but to the crowd as well.

The believing Jews form a bridge to the synagogue community. Paul cannot present a case that would be contrary to their acceptance by both Gentiles and Jews.

In any case, I am in San Diego now for the conferences and wrapping up to items for my presentation and a deadline from a publisher. We can pick this up at another time when I get back.

Thanks for the participation and comments.