Romans 1: 1-7 are the address and salutation. The entire seven verses are one compound-complex sentence in the Greek text.[1] To read it this way captures the breathless and animated spirit Paul brings to his own understanding of his mission and the nature of the gospel. Paul will greatly elaborate and Christianize the general outline. We find a more typical salutation in Acts 15:23, where the writers simply identify themselves as the brothers, both apostles and elders, the recipients as Gentile believers around Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia and a simple “Greeting.” Had he wanted to keep it simple, he might have written, “Paul (v.1), to all God's beloved in Rome (v.7a), grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (v.7b).” He could write this way. He identifies the senders as himself, Silvanus, and Timothy, the recipients as the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and the greeting of grace and peace (I Thessalonians 1:1). Thus, Paul has heighted the importance of what he has added to the typical introduction. Given the theological issues Paul immediately raises, we have to confront some difficulties immediately. Paul intended the recipients of this letter to read it to the church to which he addresses it. Unlike his other letters (apart from Colossians), Romans is the only letter written to a congregation to whom he was unknown, at least in person. He was nonetheless a controversial figure who labored against competing theologies and personalities in the volatile intellectual milieu of first-century Hellenistic philosophy. Thus, he welcomes an opportunity for theological clarification, loses no time, and spares no words in introducing both himself and his message. This, in part, explains why the salutation is uncharacteristically long and semantically complex.
First, Paul identifies the sender. The emphasis is upon his authority within the community. 1Paul, a servant (δοῦλος) of Jesus Christ. Thus, he identifies with the prophetic tradition, although they were “servants of the Lord.” They were called “servants of the Lord, as in Amos 3:7, Jeremiah 7:25, Daniel 9:6, and David in Psalm 36, Isaiah 20:3, Moses in Joshua 1:2. Ever since, ministers have viewed themselves as servants of this gospel, whether at the local congregation, or various regional ministries. Slaves composed a substantial portion of the congregation at Rome.
Let us be clear. It is okay to be a servant or slave. Paul sees no shame in being a slave, and his readers ought to feel no shame either. If pushed, Paul would acknowledge that everyone is a slave of someone or something, a slave of good or evil. The important thing is to get clear about the person or power you are serving. Bob Dylan includes this insight in his song "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1979). He sings:
"You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls,
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Yes, indeed,
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord,
But you're gonna have to serve somebody."
Every one of us has to serve somebody. Therefore, "Choose this day whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15).
Called (κλητὸς) to be an apostle. God called the great people of the Old Testament, as we find with Abraham in Genesis 12:3, Moses in Exodus 3:10, Isaiah in Isaiah 6:3-9, and Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:4-5. Set apart, the perfect participle giving the idea that the call came once and separated him, and that the effect of the call has continued until the present. That God set him apart emphasizes the completeness of the call and of his commitment to Christ. God has set him apart for the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) of God. He is stressing the origin of the gospel. Zion/Jerusalem is to be a herald of good tidings (Isaiah 40:9). The prophet can refer to the beauty of the messengers who brings good news (Isaiah 52:7). The Spirit of the Lord has come upon the prophet to bring good news (Isaiah 61:1). He identifies the Gospel of God as already in the making when the prophets of the Old Testament wrote, and thus that which 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures. Paul refers to the present Jewish Scripture and the Christian Old Testament. Paul wants to stress that since he is in the line of the prophets his teaching carries much weight, and is in fact binding, sine he speaks the word of the Lord. He sees himself in the tradition of the prophets and a continuation of their activity. Paul is no genius who rejoices in his own creative ability, but an emissary, a servant, stressing that the essential theme of his mission is not within him, but above him. God called Paul, just as God called the prophets. Paul wants to show the origin of the Gospel, and the first point is that it comes from God, that is, was already in the making when the prophets wrote.[2] Here is one of the ways Paul discusses the notion of revelation. In this case, Paul is correcting apocalyptic ideas of revelation with the idea that a provisional disclosure of what God will universally reveal in the end-time has occurred in the earthly appearance of Jesus, which is a revelation in that the law and the prophets proclaimed as something God will reveal in the future.[3] He seems to see clearly the relationship between the old and new order, which has both a continuing and a different aspect.
In verses 3-4, which deserve special treatment as he expands upon who the sender of this letter is, Paul further identifying the gospel as residing in a new act of God, the gospel 3concerning his Son, who was descended (σπέρματος)from David according to the flesh (σάρκα) and thus in humiliation and weakness, the act of God occurring at an historical moment in keeping with the promise to David land in the messianic tradition. Paul confirms other New Testament witnesses that his lineage was the line of King David. He is silent on the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Paul also asserts the divinity of Christ, 4 and the Son was declared to be Son of God with power (δυνάμει) and glory according to the spirit of holiness (a Hebraism for the Holy Spirit) by resurrection from the dead.[4] His point is that the resurrection from the dead revealed what had been true throughout the course of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The resurrection certifies the designation. Paul offers a soteriological matrix that later theology would refer to as the Incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification.
Let us be clear again. Real power belongs to the Son of God. It is easy to allow the power of this world to mislead us. Political and economic power are impressive. However, the influence of earthly leaders should not blind us to the true power that creates, redeems, and sustains life throughout the universe. Paul reminds us that Jesus is the real power person. His might and influence are everywhere, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Paul then offers a primitive confession of faith: Jesus Christ our Lord. As “our Lord,” Christ is the head of our lives and the head of the Christian community. In a sense, two worlds meet and go apart, as two planes of reality intersect the one known to us and the other unknown. They intersect at a point in AD 1-30. The particularity of these years dissolves by this divine definition, because it makes every epoch a potential field of revelation and disclosure. In this way can he think of Jesus Christ as the End or turning point of History. Within history, Jesus is a myth or problem. As the Christ, he brings the world of the Father. The resurrection is the transformation, the establishing or the declaration, of that point from above, and the corresponding discerning of it from below. The resurrection is the revelation disclosing Jesus as the Christ. As such, the resurrection is an occurrence in history and yet, is not an event in history at all. One sees here no merging or fusion of God and humanity, no exaltation of humanity to divinity, no overflowing of God into human nature. What touches us in Jesus the Christ is the rule of God who is both Creator and Redeemer.[5]
We need to discuss the matter of Christology in this passage. When Paul says that the resurrection declares Jesus to be the Son, it can sound like Jesus became Son of God at the moment of the resurrection, even though from other statements, especially in Philippians 2, we know that Paul went well beyond that.[6] Such an expression, likely a pre-Pauline Christological statement, is also an important one for the development of Christology. We need to remember that Jesus of Nazareth rejected the title of Christ during his earthly life, but through resurrection a transformed notion of the Messiah as the one who suffered for others could develop. In fact, one could say that “Jesus Christ” as if the title “Christ” were his last name. At issue in verses 3-4 is the messiahship of the crucified.[7] “Son of David” and “Son of God” have a close relation to the title Christos. Both refer to the messianic office of Jesus, but in such a way that the Davidic sonship forms the basis of the candidacy for messianic honor, while Jesus is given the title “Son of God” in view of the inauguration into the messianic honor already accomplished through the resurrection.[8] Paul here names the Holy Spirit as the medium of by which God raised Jesus from the dead and instituted Jesus into divine sonship. Admittedly, the language is theologically difficult because in these comments one can detect the adoptionist Christology of certain forms of primitive Christianity. Thus, God has made the crucified one Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36). God has fulfilled the promise to Jewish ancestors by raising Jesus from the dead and making him Son (Acts 13:33). [9] Yet, the formulation in verses 3-4 of “according to the flesh” and “according to the Spirit” became the basis for Irenaeus[10] saying that Christ as God and man is “one and the same,” and for Chalcedon to say that Jesus is truly God and truly a human being. It suggests a “two-stage” Christology. This suggests that Paul is closer to the ancient Israel and early Christian view of adoption.[11]A passage like this points toward a need for further clarification of the relation between the divine and the human in the figure of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son. As we now know, Christological thinking in the church will take the pattern of John 1:14 rather than this passage, out of a concern to trace the path of the Son into the flesh. This passage is part of the multiple ways that early Christianity started addressing the unity of Jesus with God, and one of those ways was adoption. Paul relates the titles “Son of David” and “Son of God” to each other as a way of charactering the relation of the pre-Easter Jesus to the resurrected Jesus. God did yet designate the earthly Jesus as “Son of God,” but the apostles attributed this title to him only based on the resurrection and exaltation. The statement also points out that even before his resurrection he was set apart from other people by the Davidic sonship. It assumes a continuity of the pre-Easter Jesus with the exalted Lord.[12] The apostles now saw the pre-Easter history of Jesus in the new light of resurrection. For those who looked back from the resurrection of Jesus to his earthly proclamation and ministry, this whole history had to present itself as the earthly path of him who in hidden fashion was already the eternal Son of God.[13] Behind such early confessional statements is an implicit connection between the apostolic message about Jesus and the proclamation of Jesus, a statement one can make only if one incudes the primitive Christian witness to the resurrection as the rising of Jesus to a form of fellowship with God that legitimates his pre-Easter work.[14]
Out of such Christological thinking arises what Christian theology would later develop into the doctrine of the Trinity. Paul is distinguishing between the persons of divine life. He struggles with how to express the distinctions. Sometimes, he will blur the distinctions. Later Christian theology will explore in an increasingly precise way the distinctions within the Trinity. The distinction between Spirit and Son is one we see here because Jesus is the recipient of the work of the Spirit in raising him from the dead. Jesus is both Son of David, and thus thoroughly Jewish, while at the same time, the resurrection by the Spirit designates him Son of God for all humanity. The title “Son of God” has a connection in ancient Israel with the inauguration of the king, which occurred as adoption by the Lord, as in Psalm 2:7. It implied a clear subordination of the messiah to God. However, Gentile Christianity took the phrase to mean the participation of Jesus in the divine essence. For that reason, one cannot assume that the title “Christ” refers to the divinity of Jesus.[15] Paul is not yet thinking of the office of the Son effective in the life of the earthly Jesus, but rather, only as the exalted Lord of the resurrection. Yet, Paul in other places can refer to the pre-existence of the Son as well. The reference to the Spirit here has eschatological significance, in that the Spirit is the power of life. The Spirit opens the way to community with God in the office of Son.
Paul now shares the benefits of what the God of the Jewish people has done in Jesus Christ for humanity. Paul introduces some key terms, such as faith, grace, and peace. For 5 through whom we have received grace (χάριν, a quality of God at work in the history of the Son) and apostleship, more likely “the grace of apostleship” rather than two separate concepts. Although this sounds like an assignment, it is really a gift. Paul makes clear to the Romans that his apostleship is a gracious gift. He sees his call to be an apostle as a joy, not a burden; as a privilege, not a duty. God has given him the greatest of gifts, to bring about and becoming a powerful warrant for the obedience of faith (πίστεως, which does not mean blind obedience since Paul keeps pointing us to good reasons for entrusting our lives to the gospel) [16] among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name. Barth used this passage to advance his notion that one has faith before one has knowledge.[17] Yet, can have faith first, and then have knowledge? Knowledge of the facts of history in which God revealed who God is and assent to these facts is prior to trust or faith. Paul is not asking for blind obedience to the apostolic authority of the gospel.[18] Paul further identifies the obedience of faith among Gentiles as 6 including yourselves, his readers, who are also, along with Paul, called (κλητοὶ) to belong to Jesus Christ, thus, Paul is not unique in God calling him. Rather, God has called his readers as well.
The second part of the address and salutation is identification of those to whom Paul is sending the letter. Paul stresses the status of the Christian community in the sight of God. Paul emphasizes that they are separate. 7 To all God’s beloved (ἀγαπητοῖς) in Rome, who are also called (κλητοῖς) to be saints (ἁγίοις, set apart for the use, possession and purpose of God). Since God has called them to be saints, God has chosen them. In Chapters 9-11, Paul will discuss the relationship between the status of the people of God under the old covenant of law versus the new covenant established through Jesus Christ. For now, he identifies his largely Gentile audience with the Old Testament titles for the people of God. A large number of slaves composed the congregation at Rome. Many were highly educated and had assumed responsible positions in the service of Roman civil functionaries and of the wealthy patrician class. Paul's letter would be accessible to them, and the apostle, who these Christians do not yet know, immediately identifies himself as likewise a slave - a slave of Jesus Christ.
The third part is the standard, formulaic greeting: Grace (Χάρις, the undeserved favor and love of God) to you and peace (εἰρήνη, in the form of the reconciliation with God and the inner serenity and the harmony with others that flows from it) from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though formulaic, his readers now have their first literary and theological glimpse of Paul offered in one long sentence.
As readers today, we need to remember, all of this is just the beginning!
The gospel calls us to belong to Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Later, Paul will discuss the church as the body of Christ. Belonging to Jesus Christ means belonging to the body of Christ as well.
We have a need to belong to others, whether biologically as part of a family, or in the groups to which we choose to belong throughout our lives. We need to belong.[19] We do not want to spend our lives alone. We have a fundamental and pervasive motivation toward the need to belong. We have a strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments. Even autobiographical reports of religious hermits, prisoners of war and castaways make it clear that isolation can be devastating. In order to meet this need, Christian perfection recognizes our common bond in seeking the common good, for nothing reflects our desire to imitate Christ more than caring for our neighbors.[20]
In the seventeenth century, the great English poet and cleric John Donne wrote,
"No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main."
Four hundred years later, Billy Joel wrote the lyrics to "I Don't Want to Be Alone," a song that expresses how desperate we can become to escape being alone, saying,
"I don't want to be alone anymore,
I was checking you out
I was just making sure
No, I don't want to be alone anymore."
Donne and Joel, and countless other poets, songwriters, philosophers, psychologists and theologians agree: As a species, humans do not like being alone. They prefer togetherness and belonging. To express it more directly, God has made us for each other. We have a need to give affection to others and receive it from them in return; it's one of the forces that urges us to connect with others.
First, let us discuss the value of belonging. We can get some sense of that by considering what belonging in general does for us. We belong to our spouses, to families, to friends, to congregations, to church groups, to clubs, to political parties and so on. Some of these associations are by birth and kinship, but many are by choice. To whom and to what we belong both affects who we are and reveals something about who we are.
If I am a member of the church choir or praise team, that says something about my interests, my values and my willingness to participate in worship, and it points to a group of people with whom I identify. It also says something about what has drawn me to belong to the choir. It may have been my enjoyment of singing, but more likely it was because someone in the choir invited me to join. The same will be true if you are part of a group involved in mission, a group involved in learning, and on it goes.
When you truly belong to Christ Jesus, you have heard an invitation and you respond to the invitation. Of course, the divine invitation extends to all -- to "whosoever will."
Second, belonging brings with it some responsibilities. "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, / They have to take you in."[21] Our family accepted some of that responsibility, as part of the extended family gathered briefly for some time together. Part of that family is vegetarian. We made vegetarian lasagna this time. It was a great meal. Part of what belonging means is accommodating each other and the needs and desires they have. Showing up is part of the responsibility of course. When we "belong," there is usually a responsibility to love, uphold and help one another. If there is to be any sense of community among us, love, you could say, is obligatory. However, it is more than obligatory. Community suggests holding certain things in common.
A biblical word for this sense of community is covenant, which applies not only to relationships between people, but also to the connection between God and people. Covenant is a "belonging" word. The gospel calls us to love God and love our neighbor as we love our self. One can have no full community or covenant with God without them.
Third, we need to behave as though we belong. Among the responsibilities belonging lays on us is the expectation that we will reflect the values of our group or family. Belonging to God means we should act like the people of God. We can act in a way that distances us from God and the people of God. We can walk away from the community. Yet, regardless of how much distance we may put between God and the people of God on the one hand and us on the other, the parable of the prodigal son teaches us that God is eager for us to return so that we can belong again. All we have to do is accept the embrace.
Fourth, we need to consider the benefits of belonging. Belonging also brings significant benefits. We receive care from those to whom we belong. In our times of pain or need, friends and relatives -- even members of the choir if we belong to it -- are sources of great care and comfort. In times of joy, those with whom we fellowship rejoice with us. I invite you to think of the rituals or habits we have in gathering on a regular basis, in baptism, confirmation, the Lord’s Supper, weddings, and funerals.
Belonging to Christ Jesus involves belonging to the body of Christ. Such a sense of belonging has value, responsibilities, behavioral expectations, and benefits. Yet, the body of Christ, the community is always a broken one. The community is not perfect. The focus always needs to be belonging to Christ Jesus. The desire for communion with others is a God-given desire. Sin has broken and distorted this desire. We too often expect to find in people what we can only find in God. In Jesus Christ, God accepts, knows, and loves us fully. The healthiest of our human relationships are good gifts we rightly treasure. Yet, they are only a scent, symbol, and anticipation of what it means to live in the fullness of the redemptive fellowship with Christ. As this fellowship deepens, our most painful and disconnected relationships lose their power to define us.
[1] The NRSV translates it this way, while the NIV does not.
[2] Barth, Romans, 27-28.
[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume I, 210.
[4] The contrasting elements here are not Jesus, son of David and Jesus, Son of God.
[5] Barth, Romans, 28-30.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume III, 5.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 312, 364-65.
[8] Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, p. 31, 171, 176.
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume I, 266.
[10] Adv. Haer. IV.6.7.
[11] Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, 59, 67, 117-119,133-35, 283.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume II, 381.
[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume II, 440.
[14] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume II, 283.
[15] Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Volume I, p. 49-50.
[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume I, 433.
[17] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1, 759.
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume III, 151.
[19] Here is Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" for handy reference in case you want to refer to it (usually depicted in the form of a pyramid, with Physiological needs at the base):
1. Physiological needs (food, shelter, water, etc.)
2. Safety needs (security of body, property, etc.)
3. Love/belong needs (friendship, family, sexual intimacy)
4. Esteem needs (self-esteem, confidence, respect of others, respect by others, achievement)
5. Self-actualization (morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts)
[20] --John Chrysostom, Homily 25 on 1 Corinthians 11:1.
[21] --Robert Frost.
No comments:
Post a Comment