Paul packs a lot in to the first lines of Romans. He begins by defining the Gospel: it is the good news of God, in contrast to any other use of the word “good news” in the Roman culture. Secondly, Paul uses a relative clause to “underline the trustworthiness of the Gospel (Cranfield, 56).” In the Greco-Roman, anything that was “new” was considered with suspicion. Therefore by grounding the Gospel of God in the promises of the prophets and the holy scriptures Paul is asserting that this Gospel is not something that is new or recently invented.
Paul stresses the fact that the content of the Gospel is the “Lord Jesus Christ.” Jesus is described as the Messiah, the descendant of David. As N. T. Wright reminds us in his Paul: A Fresh Perspective, “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name, but rather a title packed with some serious theological assumptions. While I think that is not too long before the church lost the messianic implication, it is hard for me to imagine that Paul would chose to write “Christ” to a community which is Jewish and would understand the term with its full messianic implications. The fact that Jesus was descended from David is also a clear Messianic reference. This is one of only two times that Paul makes reference to Jesus as a son of David.
In contrast to this earthly descent is his spiritual “declaration,” that Jesus is the son of God. The Greek orgizo is used by Paul only here. The word means “to come to a definite decision or firm resolve” (Louw & Nida). This declaration takes place at the resurrection, although that is not to imply that Jesus was a man until he was declared the Son of God. During Christ’s earthly ministry he was “‘the Son of God in weakness and lowliness’ became by the resurrection the ‘Son of God in power.’” But this too has messianic overtones if read in the light of Psalm 2, a text which was used frequently in the preaching of the apostles.
It makes perfect sense that Paul would start out his letter with so much information. If I understand correctly, he hasn’t been to the Roman’s yet, and therefore does not have anything necessarily personal to say to them. But Paul did need to clarify what he is talking about, and where it came from/it’s validity. Then he would be able to go on from there and write what he wanted to say to them.
As for Paul having messianic overtones in this passage where the letter would reach most Jews, I think that he would have to include it, simply because there were still Gentiles. He is writing this to all the believers in Rome, and therefore he needs to write with a very broad scope. With what I understand right now, I do not think that it is odd for Paul to include “Christ” and/or orgizo in his letter.
Paul definitely does pack a great deal in the opening of his letter to the Roman believers. When considering the manner in which Paul presents Jesus, using “Christ” (messianic implications) and orgizo, his overall purpose should be taken into account. As Polhill suggests Paul had many purposes: he wished to come and visit, share a ‘spiritual gift,’ preach the gospel in Rome, and begin a new mission toward Spain with the help of the Roman believers. Therefore in an extensive letter, with many purposes, a firm foundation of whom (Jesus Christ) Paul’s gospel came from was essential. As Elyse pointed out, Paul had not yet been to Rome. Although he was well known, it would make sense to demonstrate the focus of his work in Christ. Also, as Polhill established there was indeed a large Jewish community in Rome (“numbering as many as fifty thousand persons.” 280). Therefore Paul’s implementation of messianic elements would have been well met causing greater clarity for the Jewish believers. The fact that the Jews were thrown out of Rome under Claudius because of the belief in “Chrestus” is a testament that the Jewish and Christian beliefs were seen as very similar, or this could even imply that most believers were in fact Jews.
It is interesting that you mention that the culture back then did not like “new” things. I am wondering what implications this also has with Paul introducing to the people in Athens their “unknown god.” In Acts 17 Paul uses this as a springboard to spread the gospel message. It seems that he was using something “new” to his advantage. Why does he necessarily need to try to not make the gospel message “new” to the Romans?
I guess to answer my own question, I would say that it depended on his audience. He would use everything to his advantage wherever he was and in Romans he was explaining the roots of Christianity to the Romans. Even in Acts 17 Christianity was not something that was “new” or been “invented” even though Paul does not really specify that fact. He uses the culture around him to spread the gospel and the “unknown god” was his way in.
Good Brent, the Acts 17 Mars Hill speech is a result of the same sort of of suspicion of novelty. Which is why you have the unknown god mentioned, along with citations from the Greek poets. Paul tries to show that the gospel which he is presenting is not something he “just made up” but has deep “cross cultural” roots. He is trying to “ring a bell” in the mind of his audience.
In Romans, the audience is Jewish (or God-Fearing Gentiles) for the most part, but my guess is that they had enough Hellenistic worldview that they too would be suspicious of Paul’s gospel if it was not grounded in the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. While novelty does not rob an idea of value in our culture, it was a handicap in ancient Rome.
Something that really stands out to me about Paul introduction is verse five: “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.” I find Paul’s mention of his apostleship as a possible clue into the point of this introduction. Paul has never been to Rome and he makes such an effort to address them as equals, because he did not begin this church (Polhill 280). Based on these observations, I think Paul’s goal in his introduction (as any good introduction) is to establish credibility, so that the recipients have a reason to listen to the letter.
to begin, I had some issues with the blog post. I did blog before zech did but there was a “technological” problem. apparently my post didnt go up right. so if at some time I have two posts of the same thing…sorry!
Anyways, I agree with you, Zech. I see that Paul is trying to establish credibility with the Romans. As Elyse said, he had not been to Rome before this and he needed to introduce himself and his message. I have bets that the Romans did know who Paul was, I am thinking that his reputation did precede him, but he needed to establish a contact with them.
It is as Zech says “I think that Paul’s goal in his introduction (as any good introduction) is to establish credibility, so that the recipients have a reason to listen to the letter.” Paul had to introduce his authority so that they would be receptive to him when he arrived at Rome. Otherwise they would look at him and say that he did not know them!
Brent, that is ridiculous. I can’t imagine someone thinking that Paul’s spectacular introduction at the beginning of Romans was simply to establish credibility. As Polhill points out, Paul’s letter to the church in Rome was written in the winter of 56-57 (278). This was after the incident with the Jerusalem council, which as Professor Long argued earlier (to prove the Dating of Gal.) was in A.D. 48 (oct. 2, 2009). Such a pivotal meeting, taking place at the “home base” of Christianity, would have guaranteed news to have reached in far corners of Christianity in 8 years. Paul does not need to prove his apostleship, because his credibility is already given, due to the decision of the Jerusalem council. Paul needs only to mention his name to establish credibility. Therefore, there must be greater ramifications for the content of Paul’s introduction.
I will come to Brent’s defense here and point out that the mention of Apostleship is often thought of as a way of establishing credibility with a congregation Paul did not establish. I am not suspicious the church at Rome having any bad feelings toward Paul, but he is attempting to establish himself in Rome in order to continue moving west into Spain. Perhaps the mention of apostleship is a subtle way of reminding the church he has fairly high credentials!
What letters does Paul mention his apostleship? Corinthians and Galatians come to mind, both were troubled churches which struggled with Paul’s authority.
I am so very confused right now. Zach says he thinks Paul was trying to establish credibility. Brent quotes him correctly. Brent then agrees with his quote wholeheartedly. Zach then proceeds to say that Brent’s idea is ridiculous and that Paul’s intro was way to spectacular to be establishing credibility!
I have no idea whether Zach is being sarcastic or whether someone hacked his name and posted for him, but it is very confusing.
Secondly, it seems very likely that Paul was trying to establish some credibility based on the issues that have been already brought up. Paul had not yet been to Rome as Elyse said, and as P. Long said, the title of Apostleship was essentially name dropping. As with Al Durham saying that he plays with the approval of Michael Jordan, Paul was speaking with the authority of Jesus the Christ.
I am with casey being confused.
Like others, when I first read the first chapter of Romans I thought that establishing credibility was what Paul was doing. Just thinking about things from speech classes I have had and also watching people get up in front of a group and speak, there generally needs to be some credibility there. if there wasn’t what reason would people have to listen… let alone allow what that person is saying to affect your heart and way of thinking? In order to be able to affect people in your speaking they need to know why they should pay attention and what grounds you have to be speaking to them on a certain subject. So I think that is exactly what Paul is doing here in these first few verses.
It is interesting that you mention that the culture back then did not like “new” things. I am wondering what implications this also has with Paul introducing to the people in Athens their “unknown god.” In Acts 17 Paul uses this as a springboard to spread the gospel message. It seems that he was using something “new” to his advantage. Why does he necessarily need to try to not make the gospel message “new” to the Romans?
I guess to answer my own question, I would say that it depended on his audience. He would use everything to his advantage wherever he was and in Romans he was explaining the roots of Christianity to the Romans. Even in Acts 17 Christianity was not something that was “new” or been “invented” even though Paul does not really specify that fact. He uses the culture around him to spread the gospel and the “unknown god” was his way in.
I like that idea of taking the new and being suspicious of it. Who says that movies, televison, books, and etc. are better. I think some of it is crap. Maybe I would do well as a Roman citizen.
To me Paul is coming off as a hippie an trying to stick it to the man. What I mean is this. He is pushing hard for a change in thought. He preaches on the love of Christ. He doesn’t want the new Christians to be subjected to the food laws, circumsicion, and table fellowship. He wanted everyone one to live in peace in harmony.
Now I am not criticizing Paul at all for this. Some one has to be the trail blazer, and thank goodness it wasn’t me.
The best way to get a message across to anyone is to shock and awe. Paul was doing his best to rile people up it seems like. Who doesn’t like a confrontation story, that’s why in America we have a bunch of Tabloids for that purpose.
I had a thought. And that thought is: Why were the Jews so reluctant to accept Jesus as the Messiah when they had accepted individuals aside from him? I wonder if it was a matter of tiring of the “Current Messiah” or the “Messianic fad” relevant to who was percieved as the Messiah at the current time. Also, if the signs performed by Jesus were so blatantly obvious to the temporal senses of the human body, why is it that denial of the truth was so widespread? My overall question is: What was it about Jesus that was more codusive to not being seen as the true Messiah as opposed to the others?
I’ll agree with Shaun here, I am not aware of any “messianic pretenders” in the first century in Rome, or even outside of Palestine. My guess is that is not going to happen.
It does not seem to be a stretch that Paul deals with Christ being the Gospel. While it is true that there have been many messianic pretenders, it seems that they would have been more located in Judea, which means that they may not have been known in Rome. If that is the case then it would makes sense to let the Jewish people what particularly is the the Gospel all about.
It is always hard to have change or to deal with new stuff. People do not always like it at fist. I know that I have a heard time dealing with it. Just the fact from moving from a small town to a bigger city. There are a lot of new changes. Paul just wanted them to know that the Gospels were not really a new thing. They were something that was grounded in Christ. I think that they just needed to be taught that. We need to all experience new things, but I do not know if we should look at them as suspicious. They are just new for us. Most of they time the “new” thing has been a round. We just need to be told about it.
It appears the majority of the people here are liking the idea of the Jews being suspicious of anything new. This would make great sense of why Paul tries to latch onto something cultural or “old” and use that as a springboard. P. Long and Brent both blogged about this that come to mind…though several others did as well.
When I thought about all of that it hit me how simple yet brilliant the idea was/is. It is once again a modern missions technique which has its roots in Paul.
Salvation comes through faith in Jesus the Christ. After reading Romans I can’t understand how any one could come to any other conclusion. To say that salvation comes in an alternative way degrades the power of Jesus resurrection. If there is another way of salvation that means that Jesus did not have to die. There is no other way of salvation.
I really the observation that was made that because new ideas were taken with suspicion that Paul used prophesy as the foundation for his argument to display that what he was saying is not new. This is a awesome display that Paul becomes the people he is trying to share the gospel with. Paul also went to prophesy when talking with the Jews to show them that Jesus is a fulfillment of prophesy.
Two things:
I agree with the consensus that there is a major establishment of authority happening in the opening verses of Romans. And I can see the possibility of Paul’s accomodating suspicion of “new” things by presenting the gospel in context of prophesy. Perhaps I’m way off base here, but it seems to me there is something additional going on. He’s writing the Romans, right? People living in Caesar’s city, directly under the eye, so to speak, of the primary earthly authority of the day. And, as has been pointed out in previous posts, a recurrent theme of Paul’s own ministry has been persecution because of the imperial cult. These opening verses read to me like an establishment of a very specific, very real, very authentic authority that is also VERY separate from any civic or earthly powers. And I think it’s important to remember the whole attitude of “superbia” with which Roman culture was saturated. Paul introduces himself as a bondservant – masterful humility! – and then goes on to establish his credentials in a manner that precludes argument. It’s a fantastic example of disarming while exerting authority.
The second point I have is a question and is in reference to something P.Long said, “While I think that is not too long before the church lost the messianic implication…”
Why do you think that? I grew up identifying Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, as the promised Messiah. If the church lost sight of that, when did they regain it?
I don’t think that the church has missplaced Jesus in his messiah context as it relates to salvation. I think that it has lost sight of what it really means to have the messiah come to earth and fullfill all the prophecy. We haven’t, to our knowledge, seen prohecy fullfilled in the way that the coming of the messiah was to isreal. Therefore in a way the excitement about having the messiah come is lost.