Romans 1:1-7, Commentary
May 23rd, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 2 Comments |
[ Romans 1:1-7, 8-18, 19-25, 26-27, 28-32, Summary | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]
[ Doctrine of Total Depravity: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
____
Next up in the list of verse relevant to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity are a whole slew from Romans.
Unfortunately, they can’t really be dealt with independent of their contexts, and there are so many of them that I might as well just examine the whole letter.
____
So, here goes. Romans 1:1-7 (NRSV):
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 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, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
____
We start off with one of Paul’s adorable, but kind of annoying, letter introductions. It’s like he takes all the information you have to put at the top of business letters (your address, the addressee’s title, company, etc.), and writes it out in paragraph form.
____
1:1 — Paul introduces himself as a slave. Why should we listen to a slave? you might ask. Because God called on him to bring a message (to be an apostle).
If God is the master/message sender, you listen to the slave/messenger, I guess. And the message, fortunately for us, is “the gospel” = euangelion = eu-angelion = good-message or good-news.
(Notice the word “angel” [=messenger] in euangelion.)
____
1:2 — Evidently this good news was announced beforehand by the prophets. So, God sent out messengers to warn everyone ahead of time that a message was coming? That’s kind of adorable.
Notice the time language about God. Remember, such talk has to be understood in light of God’s role as Creator.
____
1:3 — The happy message (that Paul has been charged with bringing by his Master, God) is about God’s son. But God’s son is also David’s son (that is, he is of the royal line, and, therefore, qualified to be the Messiah) “according to the flesh.”
The subject of the news, therefore, is a male personage who has two fathers. Which is interesting.
____
1:4 — And, the great reveal: The personage in question is Jesus, who is the Christ (the Messiah). And we know Jesus was the Son of God because of His resurrection.
The resurrection is a “declaration.” It too, like Paul and the prophets, was sending a message.
____
1:5 — Evidently Jesus was the means by which Paul (and some unnamed others) got two things: (1) grace, and (2) the role of conquering messenger.
First, grace: The word is charis, which comes from chairo, which means “to rejoice, be glad.” Also, charis is the root of charisma (which is the word for “the gifts of the Spirit” in Paul).
Anyhoo. This grace is basically a gift of happiness.
Second, conquering messenger: Paul’s job isn’t just to deliver a message, but to achieve a result. The people who receive the message are supposed to join him as slaves of his Master.
But why? you ask. “For the sake of his name,” that’s why. (The “his” seems to refer to Jesus.) When was the last time you did something for the sake of your or anyone else’s name?
A strange concept. Does it mean, “so that Jesus will be able to ‘keep his good name’?” Or, does it mean that Jesus’ name is itself the motivation for Paul’s going out and messenging? Or does it mean something else?
____
1:6 — In v. 5, Paul said that the recipients of his message who were supposed to become slaves of God were “among the Gentiles.” Now, Paul says that the very people he is talking to are included in that group.
Except, instead of saying they’re supposed to become slaves of God, now he says they’re supposed to “belong to Jesus Christ.” In fact, they are “called” (presumably by God, just as Paul was) to this state.
A little Jesus = God claim on Paul’s part there, perhaps?
____
1:7 — Paul finally identifies the people he’s talking to as the people that God loves (the agapetos, the root of which is agape) in Rome. Presumably he means the members of the churches in Rome.
Not only are these people called to be slaves of God and to belong to Christ, but they are also “called to be saints.” The word is hagios, which comes from hagos, meaning, “an awful thing” (awful in the original sense: “full of awe” or “aweinspiring”).
Not only must it be sweet to be called to be awesome, but Paul wishes them grace (happitude, just like he has) and peace. (Peace is eirene, a horrible-sounding female name with a nice meaning: harmoniousness.)
Or, rather, Paul wishes that God and Jesus would give them grace and peace. If I understand correctly, the word “Lord” in Greek — Kyrios — was the word the Septuagint used to translate YHWH. So, Paul’s use of the word to describe Jesus may be “loaded.”
____
[ Romans 1:1-7, 8-18, 19-25, 26-27, 28-32, Summary | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]
[ Doctrine of Total Depravity: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Romans 4 ]
Where to start. There are so many issues here. First, you listen to someone sent from one you respect. In ancient culture where you didn’t have a telephone much less email or text messaging, you couldn’t directly speak with someone without traveling or sending a representative. They didn’t even have a postal system for the ordinary people. So you would send a messenger (frequently in Roman times it would be a slave) with a message, often written but possibly verbal, and maybe a token of authenticity to show who sent it. Often this was a seal impressed in wax.
Also in that time, the opening lines of a letter (or epistle) were always of that sort of form. It wasn’t considered annoying verbiage but an important part of the communication.
In another place, it speaks of a “Name above all other names.” A Name could be very important in that time. It wasn’t some sort of cheap handle like we use today. In the US, we sometimes hear that someone is arrested ‘in the name of the law.’ This term is rarer than it used to be. But the name of the law represents the might and majesty of our law. In United Kingdom, it would be “in the name of the Queen” (or King should there be one).
Grace can means happiness or joy. But is also can mean the favor or good-will or loving kindness of someone. Most commonly accepted here is the meaning that it is What is due to grace (that which is given by another due to that other’s good-will, favor or loving-kindness). According to Thayer (lexicon) “the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace, what theologians calls ‘status gratiae’”
hagios not only has the meaning awe but is associated in the Bible with holiness and consecration. Due to the grace of God, we are to be made holy which would result in our being regarded with awe. It this that we see if some special examples such as Mother Teresa. The grace of God welled up in her such ways that people would stand in awe of what she did. I don’t have time to recount the accounts I’ve heard of her work. But it was for the glory of God.
kyrios (or Kyrios) may be ‘loaded’ but it is also literal. The Lord is to be our lord in a real sense. This is hard to express in this age of independence or freedom (by which we mean we enslave ourselves to things of our choice so that we can serve these things). It is intended that the Lord’s followers will obey what He tells them to do.
BTW, there is a bit of dispute in the last decades on whether the term Christian means “little Christ” or not. The New Testament makes plain that His call on his followers is to follow him and do as He did and in accord with what He taught. A command, alas, which the Church including myself has been failing to obey.
Good point about Paul’s openings being standard for the time. They annoy me, not the people who were the actual recipients (thankfully!). It’s not Paul’s job to avoid annoying me, because he wasn’t writing to me.
“In the name of x” makes sense to me — and you provide a couple excellent examples — but I’m less sure about the phrase “for the sake of the name of x.” I assume, therefore, that this was a phrase Paul’s listeners would have understood, but that has fallen out of use for so long that I never learned its meaning.
Good points about grace. The problem is, I’ve found what is most commonly accepted about Romans to be wrong in many places, and thus find myself unable to trust what is most commonly accepted in any particular place (even though what is most commonly accepted may very well be right in a particulate place). So, I wanted to “see for myself,” as it were, by exploring the etymology of the word.
And good points hagios. I wanted to see if the etymology of the word would back up what people normally take it to mean.
On kyrios, I agree. I meant “loaded” in the sense that Paul may be claiming Jesus’ deity, in addition to claiming Him as lord (in the practical sense).