Skip to main content

Rescuing Paul from Individualism: what Romans 6 and 7 are really talking about

'The book of Romans wasn't written by Luther. The book of Romans wasn't even written by Calvin. The book of Romans was written by Paul, and Paul was a Jew, and we Jews, don't like Gentiles!' Martin Goldsmith, All Nations Christian College, 1991-92.

We are so used to reading Romans through the eyes of Luther and Calvin that we forget that the reason it was written was quite different from the issues those venerable theologians faced. The problem, from a Jewish perspective, is that the Gentiles were considered to be so impure as to be beyond the bounds of God's saving grace. They were the uncircumcised, sexually immoral, idolatrous, unclean people who couldn't possibly by part of God's saving plan. But God's plan did include them (Gen 12:1-3), and Isaiah, amongst others, prophesied that 'all nations' would be included in temple worship (Isa 56:6-8). In this he was correct. Jesus' resurrection and ascension changed everything. No longer was the message for Judeans only, but also for Greeks (Rom 1). 

Now, I don't know about you, but I've always struggled to understand Romans chapters 6-7. Why does Paul suddenly seem to get introspective? Well the answer, it seems, is that he isn't be introspective, so much as historical.

Paul, in his genius, argued that although the Gentile nations seemed to be much worse than those from Judea, in fact Judeans were just as much in need of God's saving grace. Why was this? Because the teaching of the Torah, and the rest of the Hebrew Bible, can't, in and of itself, save you. Neither can belonging to the in-crowd via the custom of circumcision. None of these things actually save us - only faith in Jesus the Messiah. But this faith is not an individual faith. The whole of the community who were in Christ (part of the Messianic Judaeo-Greek world), were included in a new people of God who were chosen, pure, forgiven, and so on. Peter actually puts this more clearly than Paul:

But you are a chosen racea royal priesthooda holy nationa people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues[aa] of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 You once were not a people, but now you are God’s people. You were shown no mercy,[ac] but now you have received mercy. (aa This verse contains various allusions and quotations from Exod 19:5-623:22 (LXX); Isa 43:20-21; and Mal 3:17. ac The quotations in v. 10 are from Hos 1:692:23.)

In Romans 6-7, therefore, Paul is talking about himself as Judean, who has had to die to the law in the sense of relying on it for salvation, in order to be part of this new people, who are in Christ (the Messiah). Salvation is in Christ, not in Judaism. Our ethnic identity is so much smaller than our identity in Christ.  In 7:7-25 the 'I' that has caused so much debate is Paul the representative of his people, the Judeans. He, as a Judean, cannot be saved through the Old Testament, but only in Christ. Likewise all Judeans. Likewise all Gentiles.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...

Asking the Right Questions in Bible Translation and Scripture Engagement Planning

If you want to get useful answers you have to ask the right questions. Do you agree? Yes, of course you do. In the Bible translation world we often ask a very narrow question when planning for the next stage of work: 'What would you like to see translated next?' Now, if you simply want to translate, and that's it, that question is fine, but what if you want to see some kind of result from your translation work? What if, for instance, you want to see transformation occur? Then a more powerful question to ask the community and positive stakeholders in the project would be: 'What kingdom goals would you like to see reached?' These kingdom goals should meet felt needs of the community - they should solve problems that are apparent to most or all in the community. See below on how those can be met. If that's too abstract, then try, 'What kinds of things, in your extended family, do you tend to worry about?' This will help establish some felt needs, from which...