romans 9 study

[Drew]

This looks like empty claims to me. You have yet to demonstrate any "unity" within the book more then to pick out a word here and there that are somehow related.

Anyone can pick out a word here and there and then import meaning. So far you have done nothing substantial.

Incorrect. I have been quite clear and there has been substantial content. The fact that the structure of Paul's argument works against your position on Romans 9 may be frustrating for you, but the arguments are clear and compelling:

1. In Romans 3, Paul raises questions about God's treatment of the Jew - that he is talking about the Jew in particular is beyond reasonable dispute.

2. In Romans 9, Paul starts with a clear focus on Israel. And he goes on to develop and answer the very same set of questions that he has raised in chapter, again in relation to the Jew.

That both these chunks of text are about the Jew is clear;

That the same questions are being asked and answered in relation to the Jew in Romans 9 is equally clear.

This may not suit your position, but the text is what it is.

In Romans 3, we get:

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say?

If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

These are questions about the unrighteousness of the Jew, specifically in relation to the covenant promises. That the covenant is in view, again, may not sit well with your position, but 3:2 is definitive - Paul's argument is covenantal.

And when Paul delivers the potter metaphor in Romans 9, it can easily be seen (if one is open-minded) as being precisely the proper answer to how God has used the unrighteousness of the Jew to fulfill the covenantal promise to use Israel to bless the world. The potter metaphor explains that God has hardened Israel and this hardening is how Israel ends up being a blessing to the nations:

21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

And I have repeatedly shown the unity of this argument with other texts, such as these that show that God has given the Torah to Israel to harden her - to make her more sinful:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

Did that which is good {***clearly the Torah by context}, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

And I have shown how the statements made in Romans 11 - that God has used the hardening of the Jew to bring salvation to the world - fit perfectly in this scheme:

The others {***clearly Jews by context} were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted.

These statement about about the hardening of the Jew in Romans 11 are compelling reasons for the reader to insert "the Jew" as the vessel of destruction in the hands of the potter.

There is a clear thread running from Romans 3 to 5 to 7 to 9 to 11: God has been faithful to his covenant promise to use Israel to fulfill the covenant. He has done this by giving Torah to the Jews to harden them - to make sin accumulate and come to full flower of expression in national Israel Since this sin is then "transferred" to her faithful representative Jesus who deals with it, God has indeed been faithful to His promise - He has molded Israel to be a vessel of destruction so that the world can be saved.

Your characterization of my position is entirely false. In this thread and others I have spelled all this out in detail.

 

[mondar]

This looks like empty claims to me. You have yet to demonstrate any "unity" within the book more then to pick out a word here and there that are somehow related.

Anyone can pick out a word here and there and then import meaning. So far you have done nothing substantial.

Incorrect. I have been quite clear and there has been substantial content. The fact that the structure of Paul's argument works against your position on Romans 9 may be frustrating for you, but the arguments are clear and compelling:

Since you have demonstrated nearly nothing about Romans 9, you conclusion is invalid. It is blowing hot air.

1. In Romans 3, Paul raises questions about God's treatment of the Jew - that he is talking about the Jew in particular is beyond reasonable dispute.

2. In Romans 9, Paul starts with a clear focus on Israel. And he goes on to develop and answer the very same set of questions that he has raised in chapter, again in relation to the Jew.

That both these chunks of text are about the Jew is clear;

That the same questions are being asked and answered in relation to the Jew in Romans 9 is equally clear.

This may not suit your position, but the text is what it is.

In Romans 3, we get:

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say?

If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

When you quote a passage, can you put chapter and verse in please. Also, what translation are you using?

Your above statements are nothing more then mere assumptions. You seem like you dont feel any need to demonstrate how those two verses, or partial verses relate to their contexts, and how those two contexts relate to each other. My guess is that you do not even know what I am talking about here. You point to two similar (but not necessarily identical statements) statements and then assume that you have proven your point. So now, you not only want to pick a word or phrase here and there, but you want to make massive assumptions that because there is some vague similarity you have demonstrated your point. You still dont seem to want to present any substantial evidence in the text other then your word games of picking a word or phrase here and a word or phrase there. You are still not working with sentences and paragraphs.

I will have to give you one thing, I dont think this would be the format for a project like I am asking for. It would probably take at least a 10 page article in a theological journal to adequately demonstrate such a point. Scholars usually take at least 10 pages, and you think by some 200 word post you have adequately demonstrated your point? I think you assume way to much.

I will say the above contrast is a good observation, but is meaningless to establish your point. Not only this, but your position is way out in far outfield. It borders on the bizarre to even suggest that your idea has any sort of general scholarly acceptance.

I will admit that I have a very different view of the world then NT Wright. His critical view of the NT as an errant, fallible book is certainly not my view. When scholars present NT Wright with evidence from Ephesians, he dismisses it by saying Paul did not write Ephesians.

These are questions about the unrighteousness of the Jew, specifically in relation to the covenant promises. That the covenant is in view, again, may not sit well with your position, but 3:2 is definitive - Paul's argument is covenantal.

The bizarre part of your argument here is that I must first assume that Romans is all about Covenant, and only then can I see questions about the unrighteousness of the Jew in relation to Covenant. That may not sit well with your position, but 3:2 is not definitive.

And when Paul delivers the potter metaphor in Romans 9, it can easily be seen (if one is open-minded) as being precisely the proper answer to how God has used the unrighteousness of the Jew to fulfill the covenantal promise to use Israel to bless the world. The potter metaphor explains that God has hardened Israel and this hardening is how Israel ends up being a blessing to the nations:

LOL, so let me get this... Romans does not quote Genesis 12:1-3, it does not quote the "cutting covenant" part of Genesis 15 (it only quotes verse 6). In fact it never once refers directly to the Abrahamic Covenant, but nevertheless that is what the entire book is about? Yes, sure, you can point to the name Abraham, or some association, but that is the point. You assume that because you see some reference to Abrahamic literature that the context is about the Abrahamic Covenant. Then you assume that all context fit in with that theme. Then you pick out a few words and phrases that have some sort of association and then assume that these words and phrases prove your point. They dont!

21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

And I have repeatedly shown the unity of this argument with other texts, such as these that show that God has given the Torah to Israel to harden her - to make her more sinful:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

Did that which is good {***clearly the Torah by context}, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

And I have shown how the statements made in Romans 11 - that God has used the hardening of the Jew to bring salvation to the world - fit perfectly in this scheme:

The others {***clearly Jews by context} were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted.

These statement about about the hardening of the Jew in Romans 11 are compelling reasons for the reader to insert "the Jew" as the vessel of destruction in the hands of the potter.

There is a clear thread running from Romans 3 to 5 to 7 to 9 to 11: God has been faithful to his covenant promise to use Israel to fulfill the covenant. He has done this by giving Torah to the Jews to harden them - to make sin accumulate and come to full flower of expression in national Israel Since this sin is then "transferred" to her faithful representative Jesus who deals with it, God has indeed been faithful to His promise - He has molded Israel to be a vessel of destruction so that the world can be saved.

Your characterization of my position is entirely false. In this thread and others I have spelled all this out in detail.

The above establishes my point completely. You seem incapable of thinking in terms of a single context. You jump from Romans 7, and a statement in Romans 7 about the law, and insert this into Romans 9 which is not about the law. Do you even both recognizing that in the middle is Chapter 8? Romans 7:7ff is certainly about the law. That is obvious. But Paul does not speak of the law there with regard to the nation of Israel. Again, Romans 7 is about the effects of legalism upon an individuals sanctification. But do you recognize this? No! You merely point to the word "Law" and then do a word association game unrelated to the context and with a double back flip land in Romans 9 and say Romans 9 is related to the law and is about Israel.

That is complete Isogesis based upon mere word association games. Drew, I have yet to see anywhere where you actually word with sentences and paragraphs to establish the argument of a passage. I have been critical of what you are doing for good reason. It is nothing but mere word association games.

 

[Drew]

LOL, so let me get this... Romans does not quote Genesis 12:1-3, it does not quote the "cutting covenant" part of Genesis 15 (it only quotes verse 6). In fact it never once refers directly to the Abrahamic Covenant, but nevertheless that is what the entire book is about?

I am more than happy to make the case that the Abrahamic covenant is a central theme to Romans. There is so much evidence to support this case that many posts will be required to make the entire case. So this is just one of probably many posts on this matter. Once the covenantal focus is understood, Romans gains a wonderful coherence and unity that it otherwise lacks.

To give the highest level overview possible:

1. Romans 1 to 4 is a treatment of how, through the work of Jesus Christ, God has brought the Abrahamic covenant to its climax. Central to Paul's argument here is the notion that the covenant promises were never made to national Israel in the first place, but were really made to "true" Israel - an Israel that is constituted by both Jews and Gentiles. Romans 4 is full of covenantal references, to such a degree that denial of a covenantal theme is highly implausible;

2. Romans 5 to 8 is a treatment of how all the covenant promises - seemingly made to the Jews have been made over to this "true" Israel. In fact, Paul treats each of a wide range of promises, seemingly made to the Jews in the context of God's covenant dealings with Israel. It would be an astonishing co-incidence indeed if these covenantal connections are pure co-incidence. Of course, they are no such thing. Covenant pervades Romans 5 to 8, even though it has been mistakenly seen as simply a treatment of "sanctification".

3. Romans 9 to 11 are the answer to this question: If God has indeed given all the covenant blessings to a family other than national Israel, how is that God is being fair in his treatment of the Jew? And Romans 9 to 11 is the full dress treatment to this question.

A non-covenantal take on Romans is of course possible. However, when a covenantal reading is entertained as a possibility - as any reasonable person would - the text gains an amazing coherence and thematic unity that can only be denied by those who are simply unwilling to revise their world-view to line up with Paul's.

Obviously, people can force the text to mean what they want it to mean. But, and this is a key assumption of my treatment - the best explanation of a text is the one that confers the most unity and thematic coherence on it. And as we will see, it is a covenantal theme that achieves this.

 

[Drew]

Romans 7:7ff is certainly about the law. That is obvious. But Paul does not speak of the law there with regard to the nation of Israel. Again, Romans 7 is about the effects of legalism upon an individuals sanctification.

No, Romans 7 is about the Torah and its effect on Israel. It is not a treatment about the effects of legalism on the sanctification of the believer. In Romans 7, Paul, as a Christian analyses the plight of the Jew living under Torah. The idea that "law" here refers to a "legalism" or anything of the like simply cannot be true.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

Of course not - death is not brought to Christian in the process of sanctification. Paul is looking back here to the time when the advent of the Law - the Torah - brought judgement and death. This is true of the Jew under Torah, not the Christian.

Of course if you insist that Romans 5 to 8 is about sanctification, then you will have to treat chapter 7 and its treatment of the Torah as a digression - an aside. Or worse, you have to deform Paul's clear references to the Torah into statements about generel moral principles or legalism. When you find people doing this, red flags should be raised. Of course, on a covenantal reading, a treatment of the Torah fits perfectly well, as will be shown in later posts.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

Sin produces death in the Christian? Sin becomes utterly sinful in the Christian? Of course not.

Please do not misunderstand Romans 7. It is not a transcript of Christian experience, for the alleged "elect" or otherwise. It is what Paul knows to be the case about the plight of the Jew under Torah, as seen from Paul's present state - that of a redeemed saint.

 

[Drew]

What does that have to do with the audience that Paul sent the message to?

Paul is writing to a mixed Jew + Gentile church in Rome and is motivated for both "sides" to understand how God has woven them together in his purposes. Hence we have Romans 9 through 11, chapter 9 explaining how Israel has been a vessel of desctruction to the benefit of the Gentile
and chapter 11 exhorting the Gentiles to appreciate how the hardening of the Jew has had salvific effect - the stuff about the branches of the olive tree.

The vessel of destruction is for the glory of God, not the benefit of the Gentiles. If the pot fitted to destruction is only Israel, and if God is hardening Israels heart only, then the Pharaoh is a Jew. Does that sound bizarre (that the Pharaoh is a Jew)? Oh my, was he actually a Gentile? Maybe its your claim that the pot fitted to destruction is only Israel is bizarre.

My argument in no way forces me to see Pharaoh as a Jew. God gives the illustration of Pharaoh as an example of how God "elects" people and / or nations to fulfill roles in this present world to fulfill his redemptive powers. Against Paul's clear implication that the hardening of Pharaoh was in respect to resisting the exodus - since the delivery of the Jews through the Red Sea is precisely the thing that would "display God's glory in all the earth" - many, you probably included elect to revise Paul's point and have him making a statement about pre-destination. And, of course, this is nowhere on the table in Paul's argument (yet, anyway).

Just because Paul uses Pharaoh as an example of hardening in support of a subsequent point about the hardening of the Jews does not require us to see Pharoah as a Jew.

Your argument seems to be that since the vessels of destruction are hardened just like Pharaoh (and to this we both agree) then we are forced to conclude that the vessels of destruction cannot be Jews since Pharaoh is a Gentile. Do I really need to explain the error in this? If you use this reasoning, we would conclude that no Spaniards can be among the vessels of destruction since Pharoah was an Egyptian. I trust the point is clear. So please do not be dismissive unless you actually can mount a credible argument.

 

[Drew]

These are questions about the unrighteousness of the Jew, specifically in relation to the covenant promises. That the covenant is in view, again, may not sit well with your position, but 3:2 is definitive - Paul's argument is covenantal.

The bizarre part of your argument here is that I must first assume that Romans is all about Covenant, and only then can I see questions about the unrighteousness of the Jew in relation to Covenant. That may not sit well with your position, but 3:2 is not definitive.

Perhaps your comment about being expected to simply "assume" a covenantal theme had some merit in the past, but you will shortly be drowning in evidence for this assertion.

I think 3:2 is definitively about the covenant. Here are 3:1 and 3:2 again in 3 different versions:

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

What, then, [is] the superiority of the Jew? or what the profit of the circumcis2much in every way; for first, indeed, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God;

Clearly Paul is talking about the Jew - do you deny this? You certainly will not if you read the text seriously.

Clearly Paul, in verse 2, Paul is expounding on something that the Jew has been "entrusted with". Do you deny that to be "entrusted with the oracles of God" entails being given these oracles for the sake of someone other than yourself. I think you would one is forced to concede that Paul is saying that the Jews have been entrusted with something for the sake of someone else.

I am merely drawing the rather obvious conclusion that Paul here refers to covenant promises about how the Jews would bless the world.

Now, since you do not believe this, please apprise us of what you think Paul is talking about here. He must have some point in mind. What do you think it is?

 

[mondar]

Drew,
This conversation is just going in circles. I think for some reason you think you are presenting evidence, and I see only assertions, not evidence. The most you have done is to compare a few words and jump all over the place. You have failed to present any worthwhile evidence.

I will continue to see the Gospel as the theme of Romans. Of course for me the gospel is not related to the nation of Israel, but is for individuals. You can say it is for individuals within the nation of Israel and gentiles, but it is the gospel of salvation nontheless.

Paul stated his theme in Romans 1:16-17.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

COMMENTS ON ROMANS 6-7
It would take a lot of space to demonstrate how Romans 6 and Romans 7 are tied in with each other. And I do mean a lot of space! Therefore, I will simply make assertions or propositions and not present evidence at this time.

Both chapters are linked by the concept of slavery. In Chapter 6 individual unbelievers have the old man and are slaves of sin. Individual believers have the new man are slaves of righteousness. Chapter 7 continues this same concept of the slavery of the individual. Believers are warned not to be slaves of the law because the law makes sin (the sin nature) come alive. In other words, the law gives the sin nature lordship over the individual believer.

The queer view that Romans chapter 7 is only about Israel would have to be taken that the law makes the nation of Israel to be dominated by sin. And then in the middle of the Chapter 7 Paul would still be speaking of Israel not doing what it should do, and doing what it should not do. OF course such a queer view would miss the point that Paul is speaking of himself as an illustration of what sin nature does with individuals.

Well, I will look forward to all this evidence you are going to "bury" me with.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
This conversation is just going in circles. I think for some reason you think you are presenting evidence, and I see only assertions, not evidence. The most you have done is to compare a few words and jump all over the place. You have failed to present any worthwhile evidence.

Obviously the careful and motivated reader will decide for himself or herself whether I am making valid argument or simply making assertions. I have yet to begin the formidable task of demonstrating the covenantal theme in Romans. The task is not formidable because there is no evidence for it, but rather because it is a "big picture" kind of case that cannot be sustained by the overly simplistic atomistic exegesis that is common in the world of evangelical Christianity.

I will continue to see the Gospel as the theme of Romans. Of course for me the gospel is not related to the nation of Israel, but is for individuals.

The "gospel" is indeed the theme of Romans. But I am pretty sure that what you mean by term "gospel" is not what I mean. I suspect you see the content of the gospel as being largely about a system of individual salvation. I think you are out of touch with Paul if this is what you believe about the usage of the term. And you seem to miss the implied "Israel" aspect of the gospel that is present in Paul's inaugural statement about the content of the gospel as per Romans 1:3-4:

the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Davidic connection here is not a throw-away. Paul's argument in Romans is intricately bound up in the Israel story and how Jesus has brought the Abrahamic covenant to its climax.

 

[mondar]

Obviously the careful and motivated reader will decide for himself or herself whether I am making valid argument or simply making assertions. I have yet to begin the formidable task of demonstrating the covenantal theme in Romans. The task is not formidable because there is no evidence for it, but rather because it is a "big picture" kind of case that cannot be sustained by the overly simplistic atomistic exegesis that is common in the world of evangelical Christianity.

"Atomistic" is a strange term for you to employ. If anyone is using "atomistic" arguments to establish your point, it would be you. Dont you remember me complaining that you take a word from one context and a phrase from some other context and you draw huge conclusions based upon the occurrence of a word here and there.

The "gospel" is indeed the theme of Romans. But I am pretty sure that what you mean by term "gospel" is not what I mean. I suspect you see the content of the gospel as being largely about a system of individual salvation. I think you are out of touch with Paul if this is what you believe about the usage of the term. And you seem to miss the implied "Israel" aspect of the gospel that is present in Paul's inaugural statement about the content of the gospel as per Romans 1:3-4:

the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Davidic connection here is not a throw-away. Paul's argument in Romans is intricately bound up in the Israel story and how Jesus has brought the Abrahamic covenant to its climax.

Now above is a perfect example of your atomistic arguments. The phrase "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" is a mere subordinate clause that modifies the term "regarding his Son." There are several other subordinate clauses in that sentence. He is also the declared "Son of God" by the resurrection. If you look at that verse, all the subordinate clauses refer to Jesus as "his Son" and are drawn from the OT prophets.

How do you handle these subordinate clauses, do you tie them in with OT revelation? No, you make these super assumptions that it relates to "covenant community." Atomization? Good term! That is exactly the approach to the text you are using. Pick a word here, look at a phrase somewhere else, and draw conclusions that Romans is devoid of the sacrificial death of Jesus for our individual salvation. The gospel is the gospel of salvation. It is the good news of the necessary sacrifice of God to punish the man/God on the cross as a substitute for those that God chose for salvation. The gospel you believe in is another (heteros) Gospel (Gal 1:8-9) that is not related to Christianity at all.

 

[Drew]

The term “gospel†or “evangelion†is widely accepted to denote the good news that people can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. However, this is not really how Paul used the term. In fact, Paul, drawing on the meaning of the term in his time and culture, uses the term to essentially denote the proclamation that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, and His resurrection from the dead constitutes Him as the Lord of all the Universe. This is not to deny that we can indeed be saved by faith. But this not what the term “gospel†actually meant to Paul.

Paul had two sources that informed his use of the term “gospelâ€Â. One of these was the Jewish usage, the other the secular usage. In this post, I concentrate on the secular use. From historian / theologian NT Wright:

In the Greek world, as is well known among scholars, “evangelion†is a regular technical term, referring to the announcement of a great victory, or to the birth, or accession of an emperor.

The following text comes from an inscription dated to 9 BCE: quoted from U. Becker, ‘Gospel, Evangelize, Evangelist’, NIDNTT, II, p.108.:

The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a saviour for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere. . . ; the birthday of the god[Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him.

The notion that the “gospel†is an ordo salutis – a characterization of how people get saved – is not really how Paul used the term. For Paul, the term “gospel†can be best understood as the announcement that “Jesus has been resurrected from the dead and this constitutes him as the Davidic Messiah and and Lord of all the worldâ€Â.

In another post, I will address the Jewish roots of Paulâ€â„s use of the term “gospel†– and they will feed into, and support, the definition given in the preceding paragraph.

 

[Drew]

....and draw conclusions that Romans is devoid of the sacrificial death of Jesus for our individual salvation.

What an outrageous misrepresentation. I have neversaid anything of the sort.

The gospel is the gospel of salvation. It is the good news of the necessary sacrifice of God to punish the man/God on the cross as a substitute for those that God chose for salvation. The gospel you believe in is another (heteros) Gospel (Gal 1:8-9) that is not related to Christianity at all.

No. Although Romans and other texts describe the salvific effect of the death of Jesus - and I fully embrace this despite your mischaracterization of my position - this is not what Paul meant by the term "gospel".

 

[Drew]

The term “gospel†or “evangelion†is widely accepted to denote the good news that people can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. However, this is not really how Paul used the term. In fact, Paul, drawing on the meaning of the term in his time and culture, uses the term to essentially denote the proclamation that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, and His resurrection from the dead constitutes Him as the Lord of all the Universe. This is not to deny that we can indeed be saved by faith. But this not what the term “gospel†actually meant to Paul.

Paul had two sources that informed his use of the term “gospelâ€Â. One of these was the Jewish usage, the other the secular usage. In this post, I concentrate on the Jewish use.

The Jewish usage of the relevant root of “evangelion†has at the least the following two informing sources:

You who bring good tidings to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
"Here is your God!" Isaiah 40:9

How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!" Isaiah 52:7

Without the appropriate knowledge of the Old Testament context and Messianic expectations in which Paul was steeped, it is easy to buy into the simplistic argument that the term “gospel†simply denotes the good news about how individuals get saved. But for Paul, it was a much more particular matter than that.

Paul was deeply immersed in the Jewish expectation that YHWH would return to Zion to be enthroned and that Israel would experience a return from her exile. While, at the time of Paul, the Jews were indeed physically back in Israel, they were, for all practical purposes still in exile (they were under the domination of the pagan Romans).

The writings from Qumran endorse this view, making frequent references to the notion of the Isaianic herald as embodied in the two texts above. So Paul lived and breathed in a culture that was aching for the “good news†expressed in these prophecies from Isaiah.

Within this framework of expectation, Paul’s startling realization was that the resurrection of Jesus constituted both the return of YHWH to Zion and the return of Israel from exile. Paul understood Jesus to have borne Israel’s destiny and the resurrection of Jesus from the “exile of death†is discerned by Paul as entailing the true meaning of the covenant promise of return from exile.

So when Paul uses the term “gospel†he is giving flesh and bones to the “good tidings†in the Isaianic texts about a God who would return to Zion and who would deliver Israel from exile. He is emphasizing the Messiahship of Jesus and His enthronement as King, seeing His resurrection from the dead as endorsing this. Thus when Paul proclaims his “gospel†in Romans 1:2-4, the issue of “how you get saved†is characterized as a result of the gospel, not its substantive content, which is instead centred on Jesus’ Messiahship (hence the reference to being of the line of David) and his lordship:

2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[mondar]

....and draw conclusions that Romans is devoid of the sacrificial death of Jesus for our individual salvation.

What an outrageous misrepresentation. I have neversaid anything of the sort.

The gospel is the gospel of salvation. It is the good news of the necessary sacrifice of God to punish the man/God on the cross as a substitute for those that God chose for salvation. The gospel you believe in is another (heteros) Gospel (Gal 1:8-9) that is not related to Christianity at all.

No. Although Romans and other texts describe the salvific effect of the death of Jesus - and I fully embrace this despite your mischaracterization of my position - this is not what Paul meant by the term "gospel".

"Salvific effect?" Thats all Christs death had was a "salvific effect?" And you say this is the same as what I am saying? Certainly the concept of salvific effect is much more broad and does not necessarily imply a substutionary atonement . There are many different theories of atonement that can be included in the concept of "salvific effect." There is only one true theory of atonement that is biblical, and that is the substutionary penal individual atonement, and that is the gospel. Please dont confuse your own vague terminology for the historically accepted concept of the gospel.

 

[mondar]

The term “gospel†or “evangelion†is widely accepted to denote the good news that people can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. However, this is not really how Paul used the term. In fact, Paul, drawing on the meaning of the term in his time and culture, uses the term to essentially denote the proclamation that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, and His resurrection from the dead constitutes Him as the Lord of all the Universe. This is not to deny that we can indeed be saved by faith. But this not what the term “gospel†actually meant to Paul.... snip...

This is the typical Drew methodology of approaching the scripture. Just as I said, you take a word here, and a phrase there and compare it and make a context say something it was never intended. The word "εÃ…αγγελιον" has a wide variety of meanings. You can go to all sorts of literature and find that it was a proclamation in all sorts of ways, both religious and secular. So what do you do Drew? You ignore the context of Romans 1:16 and go to some other context where it does not have the same meaning, or the meaning is less clear, and you say "ah ha, this is what the terms means," and then you import the narrow meaning from a completely different context back into Romans 1:16.

All you have to do is read the rest of the verse....
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation...
This salvation is on the basis of Christ shed blood.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

Christ did not die to become some sovereign ruler of the universe, he was sovereign long before he died. He died to save men from their sins, and that is the good news (gospel) of Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16-17 is the stated theme of the book of Romans.

 

[Drew]

"Salvific effect?" Thats all Christs death had was a "salvific effect?" And you say this is the same as what I am saying?

This is yet another misrepresentation. I never, repeat never, said that what I am saying is the same as what you are saying. Please stop this.

"Certainly the concept of salvific effect is much more broad and does not necessarily imply a substutionary atonement .

True, but my statement does not rule out substitutionary atonement.

There are many different theories of atonement that can be included in the concept of "salvific effect." There is only one true theory of atonement that is biblical, and that is the substutionary penal individual atonement, and that is the gospel. Please dont confuse your own vague terminology for the historically accepted concept of the gospel.

It is true that mondar's take on what the gospel is has been "historically" accepted to a degree. However, I am more interested in what Paul tells us what the gospel is. And for Paul, it is the message that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as the Lord of the world by his being raised from the dead. Paul tells us this in this text from Romans 1:

the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

"Salvation by faith" is good news, and it is an important consequence of the gospel but it is not the gospel. The idea that the gospel is "salvation by faith" is both simply untrue to Paul's statement above and is rooted in ignorance of the overall Biblical story.

Where is "salvation by faith" in Paul's definition of the Gospel from Romans 1? Indeed, Paul tells us that we get grace through the gospel, but that is not a statement of what the gospel is.

And when Paul makes this statement in Romans 1:16-17, he is not referring to a "righteousness" we get through "salvation by faith". He is instead referring to God's own righteous behaviour - He is acting in accordance with the covenant:

The defintion that mondar will have you accept entirely ignores the Old Testament story of Israel and her Messianic expectatations. We have texts from that famous chapter 40-55 block which express the great hope of Israel, including the Isaianinc herald pronouncing the good tidings of YHWH's return to Zion and the restoration of Israel from exile. This is the good news that the people were expecting, not news about "how to get saved". The only reason that the "gospel = 'salvation by faith'" idea has any purchase is that people do not know their Bibles and cannot properly see how the advent of Jesus constituted the good news that people were yearning for. Salvation by faith is true and it is good news, but it is not what Paul meant when he used the word "gospel".

And mondar also entirely ignores the secular context -the way the word "gospel" was used to announce the ascension of an emperor - I have already provided evidence of this. Again, one needs to remember that Paul was steeped in his own times - a time when Roman emperors claimed the status of gods and claimed authority over the known world. So in his statement of what the gospel is - as opposed to what others have said it is - Paul refers to Jesus as "Lord" - a direct suggestion that Jesus is supplanting Ceasar as the Lord of the world.

 

[Drew]

This is the typical Drew methodology of approaching the scripture. Just as I said, you take a word here, and a phrase there and compare it and make a context say something it was never intended.

What you characterize as "taking a word here and a phrase there" is instead the setting of Paul and his message in the appropriate Biblical context. The Isaianic expectation is there - I did not make it up. And the good news that the Jews were waiting for was not salvation by faith - it was the enthronement of YHWH. You can call this wordplay if you like - I could easily wear out my keypad with such wordplay, deluging the reader with scriptural 'wordplay' that expresses precisely what the nation of Israel was keenly looking forward to - and it was not salvation by faith.

So what do you do Drew? You ignore the context of Romans 1:16 and go to some other context where it does not have the same meaning, or the meaning is less clear, and you say "ah ha, this is what the terms means," and then you import the narrow meaning from a completely different context back into Romans 1:16.

All you have to do is read the rest of the verse....
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation...
This salvation is on the basis of Christ shed blood.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

Christ did not die to become some sovereign ruler of the universe, he was sovereign long before he died. He died to save men from their sins, and that is the good news (gospel) of Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16-17 is the stated theme of the book of Romans.

I have, of course, not ignored the local context of Romans 1. And I have not, and would not deny that the gospel results in salvation by faith. But that is not what Paul says the gospel is.

My take on what Paul meant by the word gospel works perfectly well with Romans 1:16-17. The gospel that "Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been raised from the dead and is now Lord of all the world" is indeed the power of salvation, precisely because salvation is the result of Jesus being raised and being Lord. Having defeated death and having been enthroned as Lord, we can partake in that victory.

And what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 about the nature of the gospel is simply inconsistent with your understanding of what he means.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved,...

Paul' wording is clear: we are saved "by" the gospel, that is, as a result of the gospel. Paul would not say "savation by faith" is the thing by which you are saved - but he would say "Jesus' Messianic victory over death and enthronement as Lord is the thing by which you are saved.

But with respect to Romans 1:16-17. it has been demonstrated that this text can be read coherently according to my take on what Paul says the gospel is. It can also be be read in accordance with mondar's take as well. But the text from 1 Corinthians 15 simply cannot make sense if the "gospel" = "news about salvation by faith"

And I could "wear out my keypad" overturning the following statement, which I consider to be entirely at odds with the Biblical evidence:

Christ did not die to become some sovereign ruler of the universe

 

[Drew]

I would like to expand on a point that I only gave superficial treatment to in my previous post.

For Paul, the “gospel†is effectively the announcement that Jesus Christ is the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection constitutes Him as Lord of all the world:

In contrast to this, we have the (admittedly) widely accepted idea that the gospel is the news that people can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

However, what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 about the nature of the gospel is inconsistent with the view that the gospel is simply the good news that people can be saved through faith in Jesus.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved,...

Paul says people have received the gospel and that they “stand in itâ€Â. He then says that the gospel is the means - “by which†that produces salvation. If the gospel is simply a statement about how one gets saved, then it would not make sense for Paul to use this “means†or “by which†terminology.

Imagine someone who believed that the gospel is news that we are saved (from death) by drug X. If we then import that concept into the structure of the Pauline text, we get:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that you are saved from death by drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

This makes no sense at all. The key point here is that the “by which†terminology clearly imposes a “cause-effect†structure on what Paul is saying. We would never say that our deliverance from death by drug X is the cause of our being saved from death – there is a fundamental tautology here, since the effect “being saved from death†is being attributed a cause that includes the very effect in question. We have already been told how we have been saved from death – by drug X. So it makes no sense to then say this is a cause or a “by which†for our being delivered from death.

What makes sense is to have a cause that is entirely distinct from the stated effect. So note how the following statements do make sense:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that qualified doctors have developed a drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

Now I make known to you, brethren, the news that qualified doctors have been given authority to give a drug X which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved from death,...

Returning to the issue of the real gospel, Paul cannot be saying that the gospel is the news that you can saved by faith in Jesus since it would not make sense for him to then say “as a result of this, you are saved†or “this is something by which, you are savedâ€Â.

Note the parallels to Romans 1:16-17. The gospel there is described as:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

I was being charitably incorrect earlier when I said this text is consistent with a reading where the gospel is the message of “salvation by faithâ€Â. That leads to a similar problem. If we substitute this conventional take on what the gospel is, we get:

For I am not ashamed of the news that one can be saved by faith, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

The exact same tautology is present here. In this case, the phrase “it is the power of†introduces the same “cause-effect†structure as per 1 Cor 15. It cannot be that “being saved by faith†is the power to be saved. It has to be something else, something that can be properly placed with this kind of linguistic construct, something like:

For I am not ashamed of the news that Jesus has been raised from the dead and is Lord, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,…

So in both the Romans text and the 1 Corinthians text, the notion that the “gospel†is the news that one can be saved by faith is unworkable. I will go with the definition given in Romans 1:2-4, that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and Lord of the Universe in virtue of his being raised from the dead. If we insert such a definition in both Romans 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 15, there is no tautology at all and a perfectly coherent cause-effect relationship between the content of the gospel and one of its results, is generated.

 

[mondar]

This is the typical Drew methodology of approaching the scripture. Just as I said, you take a word here, and a phrase there and compare it and make a context say something it was never intended.

What you characterize as "taking a word here and a phrase there" is instead the setting of Paul and his message in the appropriate Biblical context. The Isaianic expectation is there - I did not make it up. And the good news that the Jews were waiting for was not salvation by faith - it was the enthronement of YHWH. You can call this wordplay if you like - I could easily wear out my keypad with such wordplay, deluging the reader with scriptural 'wordplay' that expresses precisely what the nation of Israel was keenly looking forward to - and it was not salvation by faith.

I have accurately said that you compare a word here and a word there. You have just finished doing that in your response above. Well, here we go in another circle. I can see why we go in circles. You still do not grasp the concept of the semantic range of a word. We both agree that the word "gospel" refers to a good news of some sort. Do you understand that the good news of one passage does not have to be the same good news of another passage? The word "Gospel" has various contexts. If you understand this, then why do you insist on looking in a context in Isaiah to establish what the good news is in Romans 1:16-17? It is just as I said, "you pick the word here and a word there and compare them." Or in other words, you import a concept from one passage to a word in a completely different context.

Did you respond to the fact that the word "gospel" in verse 16 is used with reference to salvation? No, that is something that does not fit your preconceived notions. Do you recognize that the terms "son of David" are subordinated clauses? No, again, that is easy and very obvious evidence that you fail to grasp because of a faulty method of reading the scripture. I think the problem is your bible study methods. You have only the method of picking and choosing words to compare from different contexts. That is not exegesis.

So what do you do Drew? You ignore the context of Romans 1:16 and go to some other context where it does not have the same meaning, or the meaning is less clear, and you say "ah ha, this is what the terms means," and then you import the narrow meaning from a completely different context back into Romans 1:16.

All you have to do is read the rest of the verse....
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation...
This salvation is on the basis of Christ shed blood.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

Christ did not die to become some sovereign ruler of the universe, he was sovereign long before he died. He died to save men from their sins, and that is the good news (gospel) of Romans 1:16. Romans 1:16-17 is the stated theme of the book of Romans.

I have, of course, not ignored the local context of Romans 1. And I have not, and would not deny that the gospel results in salvation by faith. But that is not what Paul says the gospel is.

My take on what Paul meant by the word gospel works perfectly well with Romans 1:16-17. The gospel that "Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been raised from the dead and is now Lord of all the world" is indeed the power of salvation, precisely because salvation is the result of Jesus being raised and being Lord. Having defeated death and having been enthroned as Lord, we can partake in that victory.

Romans 1:16 does not say that the gospel results in salvation, but it says the gospel is the power unto salvation.
the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation
In greek grammar, there is such a thing as a result clause. It often starts with the greek word hoti. There is no result here, only the preposition "eis." The gospel does not result in power for salvation, it is power unto salvation. It is the cross work of Christ that accomplishes our salvation, and that is the gospel in Romans 1:16.



And what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 about the nature of the gospel is simply inconsistent with your understanding of what he means.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved,...

Paul' wording is clear: we are saved "by" the gospel, that is, as a result of the gospel. [/quote]
This context is even stronger in my support. Again, there is no result clause in greek. The greek preposition "dia" (shortened to di in this verse) is used. This preposition does not signify result, but says that we are saved on account of the gospel, or by the gospel.

Drew, your just making things up that cannot be substantiated by the grammar. There are no result clauses. The gospel does not result in our salvation, it is the means of our salvation.

Paul would not say "savation by faith" is the thing by which you are saved - but he would say "Jesus' Messianic victory over death and enthronement as Lord is the thing by which you are saved.

Nooo, I am saved by Christs shed blood. That is exactly what Pauls says. I would never reject his enthronement as Lord, but it is not his enthronement that saves me, but his shed blood.
Romans 5:9 says
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
We are saved not by enthronement, but by his blood. His shed blood, and the wrath of God poured out on Christ is the means of our salvation.

Drew, you minimize sin. You do not see the rebellion of sin. Because you do not see how sinful man is, you fail to see how far we are from God. Because you fail to see how far we are from God, you see less need of a bloody, punished, substitutionary savior.

Your savior saves you not by atonement, but by enthronement. My savior is enthroned, but he also atoned for my sin by his death.

 

[Drew]

I have accurately said that you compare a word here and a word there. You have just finished doing that in your response above. Well, here we go in another circle. I can see why we go in circles. You still do not grasp the concept of the semantic range of a word.

I understand this concept very well, my friend. You have precisely zero evidence for any such claim as to my knowledge of semantic range.

We both agree that the word "gospel" refers to a good news of some sort. Do you understand that the good news of one passage does not have to be the same good news of another passage?

Of course, I understand this. But I also understand that Paul did not live in a vacuum. He lived and breathed in culture with strong Messianic expectiations - that God would return and defeat the pagan nations that were oppressing Israel. And, I understand that the Biblical story is a continous integrated story - that the story of Jesus is intimately and inextricably bound up in the story of Israel. And, to be blunt, I know how to read a text - Romans 1:2-4, and take it as it stands - in that passage, Paul tells what the gospel is an "salvation by faith" is not part of it. It is a result or consequence of it, but as my last post clearly demonstrates, "salvation by faith" cannot be the substantial content of the gospel. That leads to the tautologies described in my earlier post.

The word "Gospel" has various contexts. If you understand this, then why do you insist on looking in a context in Isaiah to establish what the good news is in Romans 1:16-17?

I can understand how the Isaianic material is a challenge to your position. But, if the story of God's redemption of his creation is in fact a single integrated story, and if Jesus is indeed the Messianic figure described in Isaiah, then the Isaianic prophecies about what the "good tidings" are actually about need to be taken very seriously.

It is just as I said, "you pick the word here and a word there and compare them." Or in other words, you import a concept from one passage to a word in a completely different context.

No. It is you who fail to discern the overall Scriptural story. Jesus is the figure that the Isaianic herald looks out for. These are not separate contexts.

Did you respond to the fact that the word "gospel" in verse 16 is used with reference to salvation? No, that is something that does not fit your preconceived notions.

Please stop telling falsehoods (you are up to three now) - I dealt with that in my previous post and clearly demonstrated that the nature of the relation between the gospel and salvation simply does not work on your reading.

 

[mondar]

I have accurately said that you compare a word here and a word there. You have just finished doing that in your response above. Well, here we go in another circle. I can see why we go in circles. You still do not grasp the concept of the semantic range of a word.

I understand this concept very well, my friend. You have precisely zero evidence for any such claim as to my knowledge of semantic range.
Drew, for you to claim you understand the concept of the semantic range of meaning of a word, and then use language like you do, makes no sense. If you understand the range of of meaning in the term "gospel" then why would you import the concept from Isaiah and place it into a foreign context in Romans.

I dont care if there are some vague cultural associations. That means nothing. The grammar is right in verse 16 and the statement connects the gospel as the cause of salvation.