NT Wright - Romans in a Week

[darinhouston]

Has anyone gone through this?

http://www.regentaudio.com/product_deta ... tem_id=103

Paul's letter to the Romans has been one of the most important single documents in the history of the church, and indeed of the whole world. Most Christians have a nodding acquaintance with bits of it; few would claim to have mastered its complex arguments, its sudden changes of mood, or even the question of why Paul wrote it in the first place. This course begins with a bird's eye view of the letter, seeing it holistically before moving to the parts. Then Professor Wright focuses on the individual sections, assessing their contribution to that whole. He examines some of the most controversial and difficult passages in detail (3:21-4:25, 7:7-8:11 and 9-11) before standing back and capturing a last awesome view of the breathtaking theological and missionary vision which Paul offers to his readers.

[mikew]

No I haven't. But I think his ideas on Resurrection, as the focus more than heaven, likely has a more vital and accurate message than he could have about Romans.

Even the little blurb about the lecture suggests that Paul's focus was on missions and theology rather than on fixing the problems in Rome. Without establishing the right purpose for Romans, the attempts to analyze the complex passages will just lead to more speculation.

[SteveF]

Hi Darin, I listened to this series some time ago. Coincidently, I just started listening to it again to refresh my memory. It's funny that you'd ask about it at this time.

As I recall, the principle point of the series is to re-look at the main theme of the entire letter. Wright doesn't see chapters 9-11 as a side issue (as many commentators do). Rather, he sees it as a continuation of the main thought expressed throughout the entire letter, which is the relation of Jews and Gentiles. With the principle issue being, why so many Gentiles and so few Jews are entering the Church. I remember listening to the series and then went back and read Romans and Galatians in their entirety to see if Wright's theories fit. It seemed to me that many of his arguments made a lot of sense. I would recommend the series.

[mikew]

It seems then that N. T. Wright has gained some insight into the text and flow of Romans. The letter definitely builds upon a theme of reconciliation of Jew and Gentiles, more so from the sense of leading the Gentiles to have a better attitude toward Jews in Rome. Then chapter 9 to 11 goes to the heart of the matter and finally tells the Gentiles to stop boasting against the Jews, that God was saving the true Israel despite what the lack of apparent Jewish acceptance of the Gospel.

Though I think with the fragments I've seen of NT Wright that he hasn't quite found the actual purpose of Romans accurately.

[darinhouston]

Though I think with the fragments I've seen of NT Wright that he hasn't quite found the actual purpose of Romans accurately.

In what sense?

[mikew]

Though I think with the fragments I've seen of NT Wright that he hasn't quite found the actual purpose of Romans accurately.

In what sense?

In reading an article by Wright just now, I see him coming really close at times to the purpose and circumstances leading to the writing of Romans. Wright has a better sense of Paul's writing than Douglas Moo (who has written a significant work on Romans).

I agree with much of what Wright says here, especially about the Gentiles not welcoming the Jews back into the Roman assembly of believers:
"The Roman church, initially consisting most likely of converted Jews and proselytes within the capital, had been heavily affected by Claudius’s banishment of Jews in 49. Many of the Christians who were left would undoubtedly have been erstwhile godfearers or proselytes.Unlike the Galatian church, these Gentile Christians were not eager to keep the Jewish law, but would be
inclined, not least from social pressures within pagan Rome, to distance themselves from it, and to use the opportunity of Claudius’s decree to articulate their identity in non-Jewish terms. When the Jews returned to Rome in 54 upon Claudius’s death, we may
properly assume that the (Gentile) church leadership would not exactly be delirious with excitement. Even though, as we must stress, not all Jewish Christians were ardent Torah observers, and even though the church was most likely scattered in different small groups
around the large city, internal tensions, reflecting at least in part a Jew-Gentile split, were inevitable.
(from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Roma ... y_Paul.pdf )

Yet Wright seems to get distracted from the main purpose (of correcting the boastful attitude of Gentiles against Jews and the Law) by overemphasizing (and misunderstanding) the troubles of Israel and resolution of those troubles of Israel.

Part of the key to seeing the purpose of Romans is first to find out why Paul told the Roman audience "you who judge are guilty of the same things" (Rom 2:1, fragment, paraphrased). This verse has been recognized by Gregg as being critical to the understanding of Romans. But Wright may not have had the such an insight. But take note also that the proper audience must be discovered as well if you are to figure out the purpose of Romans -- that the audience is essentially only consisting of Gentiles.

The presentation and arguments of Paul are very subtle which then has made the discovery of the purpose rather elusive. Wright just hadn't seemed to make the paradigm shift to pinpoint the purpose.

[darinhouston]

Thanks for the explanation -- I've read parts of that article before, and am having trouble figuring out where you would differ (other than emphasis) -- part of your post sounds like you are critiquing merely the matter of emphasis as to the state of Jews and Gentile -- but then you say he missed the "purpose" of Romans. I didn't gather anything in the extract about what you think Wright is saying about the "purpose" of Romans.

Also, I think there are probably a number of purposes to Romans, and I think Steve makes a good observation about judging the Gentiles' behavior, but is there something that would make you think that Wright would actually disagree?

[mikew]

Thanks for the explanation -- I've read parts of that article before, and am having trouble figuring out where you would differ (other than emphasis) -- part of your post sounds like you are critiquing merely the matter of emphasis as to the state of Jews and Gentile -- but then you say he missed the "purpose" of Romans. I didn't gather anything in the extract about what you think Wright is saying about the "purpose" of Romans.

Wright emphasized the purpose as being the faithfulness of God (also expressed as God's righteousness). (This is a concept of God's righteousness as being a synonymous with faithfulness is something I would like to examine a bit more.) Such purpose is indicated by the following phrase:

The technical term for this whole theme is, of course, that which he announces programmatically in 1:17: in the gospel of Jesus, the Messiah, is revealed the covenant faithfulness of god,

Although Paul does mention much in chapters 9 to 11 to describe the faithfulness of God, this is supplemental yet vital to Paul's purpose of leading the Gentiles into a benevolent attitude toward Jews -- stopping the boasting against Jews, stopping ridicule of the Law.
(This boasting first is introduced in Rom 3:27-31)

Also, I think there are probably a number of purposes to Romans, and I think Steve makes a good observation about judging the Gentiles' behavior, but is there something that would make you think that Wright would actually disagree?

Here's the main type of purposes I see in Romans.
1. Occasion or event driven — anti-Jewish attitude of the Roman Gentile believers.

2. General goal — fix problems local to Roman believers

3. Incidental purpose (to cover points that would not compel him to write but are now covered cause he is writing):
a) Instruction on theological framework
b) Give general instruction to live properly in love and service to one another

4. Objectives, specific goals upon Roman believers--
a) Move the Roman believers from pride into benevolent attitude toward Jews
b) Move the Roman believers from pride to good behavior toward each other
c) Give Roman believers instruction needed to endure Roman government persecution (Rom 8 with some ideas from ch13)
d) Convince Romans to stop following the flesh (Rom 6). The flesh problem was shown also in their pride.
e) Solidify the trust in God by showing that God was faithful to Israel (Ch 9 to 11).

I don't know whether Wright would strongly disagree. Many of his reflections on Romans seem really close to the right idea, almost so close that it would be hard to make the shift.

Again I think the whole key to understanding Romans is to sense the emotional tension made by Paul's accusation or declaration in Rom 2:1. Paul's declaration that "any of you who judge, you are guilty of the same thing." (Paraphrased fragment). This is like an insult to Paul's audience and is like throwing cold water on the audience right after exciting them through the sermon in chapter 1.
Why did Paul have to shock them at this moment?

[darinhouston]

Thanks -- I've been wanting to really get a handle on Romans for a while, but I realized I've been spending more time reading about it than reading it. So, I plan to read it through and meditate on it each week for a couple of months and then return to the commentators.

[mikew]

Thanks -- I've been wanting to really get a handle on Romans for a while, but I realized I've been spending more time reading about it than reading it. So, I plan to read it through and meditate on it each week for a couple of months and then return to the commentators.

I would suggest some quick read throughs. Try to get the emotion of the letter. How would the audience react to Paul's words? Remember that this letter was read aloud to a group so there would be group dynamics. Take note of the judgmental passages. Why was Paul leading them into the judgmental attitude in several passages when Jesus told us not to judge one another? So why was Paul seemingly writing these judgmental passages? What would the audience's mood be upon hearing the message after the judgmental passages?
It seems that the Romans would have gotten angry with Paul at several instances or at least be animate against Paul's position -- if Paul was writing controversial material (from the audience standpoint) then Paul likely wouldn't have had to write to them at all.

My break through came when I was reading Rom 10:8-10 --which reminds me -- try to gloss over these passages, in your initial read-throughs so you don't get caught up in narrow vision on such passages. I wanted to understand the context. So I kept back tracking to determine the context. Finally, I got to Rom 2:1 and got stuck there trying to figure out why Paul was making accusation against the audience.

Anyhow, these are ideas I would suggest, in order to make you my guinea pig. I'm confident on my conclusions about the purpose and context of Romans because what I discovered now made sense of the whole ---er --- most of the letter.