Romans 1
1 Paul a servant of the Messiah Jesus, called an apostle appropriated unto God’s euangelion
doulos could also be rendered slave, but though it might be a more accurate description. I’ll be using Hebraic language throughout on purpose, translating Christ “Messiah,” law “Torah,” and peace “Shalom” among others where Paul refers to a clearly Jewish concept that has survived in transliteration to us and might be vivified by that usage. It will also be a part of my interpretative case to argue that Christ, far from being some sort of surname, is both a title and in some sense incorporatative. I had half a mind to render kletos “elected” rather than “called,” but don’t want to imply the election language of the determinism debate that’s quite unrelated. It is worth noting that kletos is not called in the sense of “called by name,” but “called” in the elective sense, echoing the thread of Judaic theology as Israel being God’s “chosen” or “elected” people throughout the O.T. aphorismenos is not rendered “appropriated” against “set apart” but as a restatement of the same idea. I’ll be translating eis as “unto” throughout simply to mark it, and clarifying as needed. I’ll also transliterate euangelion and its various cognates to avoid the heavy-handedness of “gospel” and lack of a verbal form for “good news.”
2 (the euangelion) which he forepromised through his prophets in the holy writings
Forepromised is proepengeilato, which could be stated more grammatically, but not without splitting the word. Important to note for later development that Paul insists the euangelion was exactly what the prophets did forepromise, not a surprise development unrelated to Israel’s promised eschatological hopes. The word forepromised is the prefix pro and the noun epangelion, which is enormously important in the theology of Galatians. (I think it’s developed in Romans as well, though not to the same extent. We don’t catch it in English, but euangelion (good news) and epangelion (promise) are cousins from angelos. (message, messenger) I chose to translate graphais as writings because the body of literature held holy by 1st C. Jews would have included more than what we know as the Old Testament scriptures, including the apocrypha and several books of rabbinical writings.
3 concerning his son born from David’s seed according to the flesh
Son of God probably primarily as relates to his Messianic, not divine, identity. (Not that these are unrelated, but it’s not Paul’s agenda to demonstrate Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, rather as the promised Messiah, to which a promised appellation was son of God, but without the eventually-worked out conclusion that implied his membership in the Godhead.) Sonship from David also correct. According to the flesh is sarka, not soma, which will have to be distinguished later.
4 determined God’s son in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, the Messiah Jesus our Lord
Designated or appointed would also be appropriate translations of oristhentos, and reinforces sonship as a Messianic concept. In power (dunamei) is contrasted elsewhere by Paul as the means of demonstrating the gospel, opposed to lofty speech or sophistical wisdom. Jesus is determined the Messiah by an act, and by a mighty act (same word as the miracles of Jesus) not by private gnosis. I don’t know why Paul chose pneuma hagiosunes (spirit of holiness) and not pneuma hagion (holy spirit) and I’d welcome any insight. Presumably that’s the same agency? By means of the resurrection, which is an enormous and largely ignored theme in Romans, especially as it pertains to Jesus’ Messianic identity. Subject at the end for emphasis. This is, in the one sense, Paul’s thesis. Everything else that he says comes back to Jesus being demonstrated Messiah and kurios by the resurrection.
5 through whom we received grace and mission unto faithful obedience among all the gentiles for the sake of his name
Charin is related to grace, forgiveness, and gift. I’ll usually translate grace and mark when necessary. Mission is apostolen, a different form of apostolos. hupakoen pisteos is better as faithful obedience than the obedience of faith, and it does matter how one sets the precedent for the subjective genitive of pistis, which is later enormously important. En should be among, not to the Gentiles.
6 in which ye are even yourselves called of the Messiah Jesus
vv. 5-6 need to be read consecutively. The name of Jesus as “Messiah” has a corporate sense which includes but also means more than the denotation of the person Jesus. I believe this to be an important concept throughout the book, as it demonstrates the community of the believers in the Messiah as himself the reconstituted Israel. Called is again kletos, echoing the Jewish theology of election.
7 to all which are in Rome God’s beloved, called saints, grace to you and shalom from God our father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
Paul finally gets around to the destination address. It’s worth noting that if Paul had access to any form of the written synoptics or the oral tradition from which they came, he would know agapetos was a term in the gospels reserved exclusively for Jesus. If you aren’t aware, it helps to know that the adjective hagios (holy) in the plural becomes saints as a substantive noun. Eirene does mean peace, but Paul almost certainly meant the full and holistic connotations of what we mean by shalom rather than the English word “peace.”
8 First I give thanks to my God through the Messiah Jesus concerning all of you, since your faith is proclaimed in the whole cosmon
There is an untranslated particle men in vv.8 that is used in Greek to contrast two sentences when paired with de. The contrast sentence is either v. 13, with the effect, “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but I need to share with you the euangelion I’m giving everywhere else.” Or v. 12, meaning “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but here’s a spiritual gift, which is the truth I share everywhere else, etc.” The biggest question that comes out of it is, Is Paul being encouraged with the Romans, or are the Romans being encouraged together with themselves, according to the grammar? I don’t know (or remember) nearly as much as I should about the timing of Paul’s trips to Rome, but it may be important for us as we go on to determine whether Paul is addressing a church which he has met and sown personally, and what sort of tensions (if they can be drawn out) he is writing into. Specifically, whether he writing to a Gentile, Jewish, or mixed audience. I’ll probably transliterate cosmos (kosmos), which has some facility of meaning between, system, order, world, and universe. It might be helpful to know that the other options for “world” Paul chooses not to use when he writes kosmos are ge (land) and oikoumene (the inhabited world, perhaps the Roman Empire).
9 For my witness is God, to whom I serve in my spirit in his son’s euangelion, that I make your remembrance constantly.I’ll try to note soul/spirit/heart as well; in my spirit here is in pneumati mou, which, as far as I can tell, is the straightforward meaning of how we also would say “I serve in my spirit” i.e. our intangible will and existence.
10 Always in my prayers asking how already then I might be well-directed in God’s will to come to youeuodothesomai is a vague word, could also be rendered “have things go well,” “earn” or “make possible.” I chose a bulkier but more part-by-part translation.
11 For I yearn to see you, that I might share some spiritual gift unto your strengtheningcharisma pneumatikon is the spiritual gift; I presume the gift is “being encouraged by what’s common to our faith, which is what I preached among the gentiles, which is THESIS” I’d hear a case for the spiritual gift being something unrelated, like a mighty Pentecostal sign, but I don’t thank that accounts for the way in which the grammar of v.8 ties into the grammatical construct of v. 12 or v. 13, or both. Unto your strengthening is an articular infinitive, which has no way of being translated directly into English. (It would be something along the lines of “unto your to be strengthened.”) There are a couple different ways to address that, and there’s much debate on the best way. I don’t remember what they are at the moment, and if we come across a more significant example I’ll get off my behind and look them up.
12 And this is to be encouraged together among you through what among each other is of your faith and mineencouraged-together is one word, sumparaklethenai, a cognate of that slippery and fascinating word parakalein, which depending on which translation you read, either means to exhort, encourage, or comfort. (This is very important in Corinthians.) I chose to translate allelois to each other instead of one another to sustain the effect that Paul is talking about something (the spiritual gift which is the euangelion) which is common, not just to whatever parties he is addressing in Rome, but also between Rome, Paul, and all others having faith. Here begins a series of te…kai constructions, which link two objects in a “both…and” sort of way, starting with “your faith” and “mine”
13 But I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that often I forepurposed to come to you, and was hindered while going, so that I might have some fruit among you even as also among the remaining GentilesThe ou thelo humas agnoein is one of Paul’s trademarks, showing up in Corinthians and in Romans, always introducing a new concept or topic. Here I think it’s more linked to Pauls’ being debtor to the Gentiles than to his intentions of coming…we just get to his indebtedness, and hence his gospel, via his willingness to come in person. Among you as among the remaining Gentiles is another te…kai.
14 Both Hellene and Barbarian, both wise and foolish I am debtor
te…kai, te…kai. It’s worth commenting that Pauls’ unique apostleship to the Gentiles is defined in Acts, although I hardly suspect that’s new information to any of you. Also note that the statement “I am a debtor” is related to I do not wish you to be ignorant, not just a throwaway comment. Could also be translated, I am obligated.
15 Thus the willingness according to me also to you which are in Rome to euangel.
What a hideous sounding sentence. Is it so ugly it’s unclear? I hope not. We get the statement of what the euangelion is coming up, in response to Paul’s being a debtor to the Gentiles and his statement of the euangelion as righteousness by faith being the spiritual gift he wishes to impart.
16 For I am not ashamed of the euangelion, for it is God’s power unto salvation to all believing, both to the Jew and Greek
Not ashamed by the gospel or on the gospel also fine here. It’s a transitive verb with a direct object. Hopefully our reading of the rest of the text clears up the hugely important question of whether Paul intended to have this verse read with the stress of the voice on the word “salvation,” “all,” “believing,” or “both.” I hate that there’s no better way to translate believing. It is the participial form of pisteo, which is easily rendered faith everywhere else. I’ll try to note whenever pistis shows up in some form other than faith. So Paul really says to all faithing, both to the Jew and Greek. (Another te…kai)
17 For God’s righteousness in him is revealed by faith unto faith, even as is written, And he who is righteous by faith will live.
I’ll always translate (if I remember) dikaiosune theou as God’s righteousness, which gets very important in chapter 3. By faith unto faith is ek pisteos eis pistin. The quotation is from Habbakuk, in answer to Habbakuk’s questions “when will you hear cry for deliverance?” and “how is it, everlasting one, we die?” As to whether “by faith” is the agency by which the righteous lives, or denotes the sort of righteousness the righteous “one” has…no idea. Dikaios, which we’ll talk about as we go later, is also the same root for just, or justified, so two more possible translation could be And he who is justified by faith will live, or He that is justified will live by faith. Whichever way, it is Paul’s thesis, one he believes rooted in the Hebrew O.T.
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven upon all irreverence and injustice of men holding down the truth in injustice
Revealed here is apokaluptetai, the same word as v. 17, (as in the apokalupsis, the title Revelation) and one of what I’d call the three central pillars of Jewish “theology.” (Monotheism, Election, and Apocalyptic Eschatology) It will be an ongoing project to see how these three themes are reworked in Paul’s theology of the Christian message. Injustice is adikia, and Dik is the central idea of this section. It is the dikaios that lives by faith, justification is dikaiothentes, the righteousness now being made known is dikaiosune, and here in the apocalyptic passage Paul indicts those holding down the truth in adikia. It’s extraordinarily interesting that within Christendom there are now two polarized worldviews, one which is deeply concerned with and acting for righteousness, but suspicious of the work for “justice” on the other side, and another that is deeply concerned with and acting for “justice,” but made uncomfortable by the idea of “righteousness” and not really sure what it means. (That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s an exaggeration that aptly describes the difference between Lima Christian School and Gates Presbyterian Church) In Greek these separated ideas are summed up in one word, dik, and I think that to understand Paul’s long argument we have to preserve both English meanings. God’s justice and justification are really about being made righteous, and on the other hand injustice of any sort is really an attack on the righteousness of God.
I translated katechonton “holding down,” but restraining or oppressing are also fine translations.
An important exegetical note: We mustn’t here assume that Paul is talking about the doctrine of Original Sin and begin reading that subject into the text. If we do, I contend that we will misunderstand Paul’s point in chapters two and three, and break the unity of his intended argument. This is not to say that Romans 1 doesn’t share territory with the doctrine of Original Sin; of course it does. But still, the “natural” condition of sinful humanity is not Paul’s object here. His discussion is of the volitional sin of idolatry, and how that sin is the arch-sin meriting God’s wrath and necessitating God’s righteousness through the Messiah. I think we’ll further see how this idolatry with judgement parallels the Old Testament narrative of Israel, which because of its idolatrous unfaithfulness was judged by God, ultimately into exile; the story Paul tells in chapters 2-12 is the narrative of the Messiah, likewise echoing the narrative of Israel, complete with exodus, deliverance, law-giving, and covenant. But I give too much away too soon; it suffices here to say that we mustn’t assume that Paul’s first topic is Original Sin and then his answer to it is a private religious response to that problem.
19 Because God’s knowledge is shown in them. For God showed to them
“Shown” in a very similar sense to revealed, but the word is phaneron instead of apokaluptetai, probably because apokalupsis carries with the “revelatory” meaning a theological sense of climax for Paul. I don’t know whether the best translation of the second half of this verse is “For God showed it (his knowledge) to them” or “For God showed himself to them.” There is no specifying article, so it could be either. All our earliest manuscripts would be without punctuation, so the text in its barest form would simply read that God’s knowledge is shown to them for God showed them. (There would definitely be a separation between what we have as v. 20 and v. 21, however, because of the particle gar.) The total idea of vv. 18-19 is that God’s wrath against the unjust detention of the truth can’t be avoided by pleading ignorance; then the clarification in v. 20.
20 For his unseen (things) from the cosmon’s creation by his actions have been understood clearly seen, which are both his everlasting power and deity, unto their being without defense.
The unseen things are simply ta aorata. Aorata is adjectival, and the article ta denotes something, but not particularly the word “something” or the word “those” which it alters. The sentence is less bulky in Greek. By his actions is tois poiemasin, which could also mean by his doings, by his work, or by what has been made. The verb is kathoratai, which in the original running of the sentence stands in sharper relief to aorata. (The unseen things…have been clearly seen.) Theiotes might also have the sense of divinity or “godness.” I don’t know that it’s used anywhere else in the New Testament. Without defense is anapologetous, (without apologia), which will come back several times in the epistle.
21 Because knowing (the) God not as God did they glorify or give thanks, but were stultified in their reasonings and their understandingless heart was darkened.
Here begins Paul’s explanation of the net result of their injustice/irreverence. Not only is it disobedient, but it is dehumanizing. Heart, mind, wisdom, and body—those things owed to God in Jesus’ summary of Torah-duty—are all debased by their idolatry. Keep in mind, this is not (yet) an indictment of all humanity, but of those who holding down the truth in injustice practice idolatry. I translated emataiothesan “stultified,” but the net result is “made futile.” It’s worth noting that the proper reaction to knowing God set against dehumanizing idolatry is “glorifying and giving thanks.” These are not optional spiritual disciplines, but vital functions in creational monotheism, as I think we’ll see later.
22 Alleging to be wise they became foolish
I’m interested in hearing interpretations of who these irreverent and foolish idolaters are. I’ve seen them in a category as large as “all pagan Gentiles,” and as small as “the debauched imperial cult.”
23 And they altered the glory of the incorruptible God into the likening of corruptible images of man and birds and beasts and serpents.
I can’t quite tell whether the glory is divinely incorruptible or the glory is of the quality of the incorruptible God. I’ve gone with the majority translation here, but I really need to do some research on genitives. Beasts is tetrapodon, or “four-footers.” Paul is evoking Deuteronomy 4 here, which is of course front and center in Torah.
24 Therefore God handed them over into their heart’s desires unto the uncleanliness of dishonoring their bodies among themselves
Paradoken (from paradidomi) is what Jesus always said the Jews would do to him, and then what Paul always says Jesus did to himself. It’s a theologically charged word that can also mean betrayed or delivered. Desires are epithumias, which include, but are not limited to sexual lusts. Again, Paul in criticizing them for entering unto akatharsian is making a very Jewish job of it. Akatharsis, or uncleanliness, is a violation of Torah. Paul isn’t saying this to recommend that the solution is through Torah, of course, but he is drawing deliberate parallels between the old Jewish narrative and the new Christian story. Bodies here is again, somata, not sarx, which is very important later on.
25 Which exchanged God’s truth unto a falsity and reverenced and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed unto the ages, amen.
I don’t know that that this sudden blessing is a spontaneous rabbit-trail. (I’m sure St. Paul was capable of spontaneous praise, but most of his writings seem pretty deliberate.) It’s rather the close of a section of argument premised on creational monotheism, and when the argument is closed and the next subject taken up (the dehumanizing effects of irreverence) the eulogetos, amen is summative. Unto a falsity is eis pseudei; unto a lie doesn’t quite capture the parodic sense of the word.
26 On account of this God handed them over unto passions of dishonor, for both their women exchanged natural sex unto that contrary to nature
We do not here have St. Paul choosing a group to bully at random and then castigating gays because he wants to get at all the sinners. Rather, the exchange of the natural reverence for the creator for the unnatural idolatry of the created, and the resultant corruption of will uniquely demonstrated in dehumanizing homosexuality. The last part of this verse is ten phusiken chresin eis ten para phusin. A good English language resource for the meaning of phusis (from which we get the words physical, metaphysical, physics) is the first chapter of C.S. Lewis’ Studies in Words. The Latin equivalent is natura, and natura language has been particularly useless in the homosexuality/gender arguments over the past few decades. I think it might be useful to start using phusis language to cover the same territory. For example, there’s no consensus over whether someone can be naturally gay in the same way they are naturally Caucasian, tall, or brown-eyed; but ask whether someone can be physically gay in the way that they are Caucasian, or physically tall, and they might not be quite so ready to use the same arguments by analogy. Para can also be translated “against” phusin. The bashful NIV makes chresin “intercourse,” but it’s more blunt than that.
27 And likewise the men forsaking woman’s natural sex blazed in their lust unto one another, men among men accomplishing shame and receiving the return which is necessary of their error among themselves
Or “forsaking natural sex of/with women.” The cases don’t line up very well. The word shame in this verse is distantly related to the verb in v.16, but I don’t think it’s a close enough kinship to read in any deliberate contrast. The return (antimisthian) might be repayment or wage. I don’t know enough about the history of venereal diseases to speculate on whether Paul was talking about this sort of thing (though I do know that homosexuality was deeply pervasive in late classical paganism, and Paul would not be writing about such practices in newfound shock) but I’d suggest instead that the received “return” was the subhumanizing and dulling narcosis, against which Paul has been arguing in general. I’ll here leave the door open for comments about free will and determinism without saying anything more of my own except that it seems clear to me that God permits the sinful free choices of the idolaters, permits the necessary consequences of their actions, and then justly judges them.
28 And even as they did not discern to have God in acknowledgement, God handed them over unto their corrupted mind, to do those not owed
A slippery verse. Edokimasan can mean test or account, and epignosei can mean acknowledgement, recognizement, or just plain “knowledge.” The paraphrase would be, “and just as they didn’t even think to think about God.” Handed over is again paradoken. First to the dishonorable desires, and then, having made that choice, to the corruption of the instrument by which good desires and ill arise. Those things not owed is ta me kathekonta. It’s a very rare word, and could possibly mean “not fitting,” “not proper,” or “not owed.” It is, in its bare parts, “against will.” (I think)
29 Being filled with all injustice, wickedness, greed, cowardice/vice, full of corruption, murder, strive, deceit, meanness, gossip
Not just a random vice list, but the final result of the idolatrous reverence of the created over and against the creator, with special qualification of having been given over to a corrupted mind/understanding. (noon)
30 Slandering god-hating insolent arrogant boastful schemers of evils, disobedient to parents
31 Understandingless faithless affectionless compassionless
Understandingless is the same word as earlier (asunetous), and is a play on words with the faithless, which is (asunthetous) Affectionless is astorgous; so loveless, but of that particular love storge which is family affection/duty. Aneleemonas could also be merciless.
32 Such knowing God’s judgements, that those doing such are worthy of death, not alone did they do these but approved of those doing them.
Knowing here is epignontes, as in again, recognizing or acknowledging. Out of time and Julie is hastening me out the door.
No comments:
Post a Comment