What did Paul mean by not being ashamed of the gospel in Romans?

Ashamed – “embarrassed or guilty because of one’s actions, characteristics, or associations” or perhaps “reluctant to do something through fear of embarrassment or humiliation.”

In Greek, the word is epaischunomai ( ἐπαισχύνομαι ) “to be ashamed – of a thing” in this case, the gospel, the good news of the kingdom of God.

Fair enough, right? Just a straightforward meaning. Or is there more? An undercurrent of meaning that most of us have missed that the first hearers of the letter would have caught?

Let’s look at the cultural context. Paul…writing to Romans…people he had not yet met. Rome was the heart of the Roman Empire. And that empire flourished because they had dominated the hearts and minds of its people – whether they liked it or not.

So, Caesar was the one who brought peace. Romans knew that the good news was that Caesar had conquered the barbarians and that peace in the world was possible because of him.

In fact, he was the savior of the world. That was the good news.

The bad news was to the conquered. Their lot was one of shame because they had lost. They were the problem and their culture and systems were simply inferior as proven by being overthrown. They were shamed into submission and were assimilated into the Empire.

Their shame was cause for celebration in Rome. Their shame meant peace. Their shame meant Romans had been saved from these people.  Their shame became boasting in Rome.

So, when Paul writes that he is not ashamed of the gospel, he is throwing down a clear challenge to Rome, Caesar, and all that the Empire represents. He is in effect saying that he is not ashamed – he has not been conquered, his God has not been defeated, the kingdom of God is greater than the Roman Empire.

This is a huge difference from the surface reading that most preachers and teachers propose.

Let’s first look at how John Piper approaches the subject. (Click here to go there…)

His logic goes like this:

• The reason Paul was “eager to preach the gospel in Rome is that he is not ashamed of the gospel.”
• The gospel was first the basis of Paul being shamed.
• The gospel was secondarily the basis of freedom from shame.
• Therefore, we should not be ashamed of sharing the gospel with others.

Like most Christian teaching today the emphasis is on two things:

1. The individual
2. The application

The focus is on you, today, here and now and on how you should live this out. Here is a link to another page that does this. Note this quote:

To be “ashamed of the gospel” is to allow willful sin to take over our lives and not look back because who cares what God says…To be “unashamed” of the gospel means that we not only speak this truth, but we also live it out in our lives.

Now, I am not against making a personal connection and I am definitely not against putting into practice what we know and love. What I am concerned about is that we may have missed the point…we may have shape-shifted the message into something it was not.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the book of Romans since the time of the Reformation has been largely accepted to be theological in nature…Paul’s “theological manifesto.” It’s where we got “The Romans Road.” (Interestingly enough, a “road” that the original hearers of Romans would not have grasped.)

But in missing the point right up front in the introduction to the letter, by veering off course just a little, I believe the destination we have arrived at all these years later is not the one the Romans arrived at when they first heard the letter. And that is something to be ashamed about.

Click Here! More on my take on Romans can be found in this post!

God, Gentiles and Grace – On the Essence of the Inclusion Debate

Image via Wikipedia

I recently heard Alistair Begg give an excellent summary (found here, about 17 minutes into the broadcast) of one of Jesus’ most compelling confrontations.

The text at hand is Luke 4:14-30:

¹⁴ Then Jesus returned to Galilee, filled with the Holy Spirit’s power. Reports about him spread quickly through the whole region. ¹⁵ He taught regularly in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.¹⁶ When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. ¹⁷ The scroll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where this was written:

¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released,
that the blind will see,
that the oppressed will be set free,
¹⁹ and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come.^[f]”

²⁰ He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. All eyes in the synagogue looked at him intently. ²¹ Then he began to speak to them. “The Scripture you’ve just heard has been fulfilled this very day!”

²² Everyone spoke well of him and was amazed by the gracious words that came from his lips. “How can this be?” they asked. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?”

²³ Then he said, “You will undoubtedly quote me this proverb: ‘Physician, heal yourself’—meaning, ‘Do miracles here in your hometown like those you did in Capernaum.’ ²⁴ But I tell you the truth, no prophet is accepted in his own hometown.

²⁵ “Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land. ²⁶ Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them. He was sent instead to a foreigner—a widow of Zarephath in the land of Sidon. ²⁷ And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, but the only one healed was Naaman, a Syrian.”

²⁸ When they heard this, the people in the synagogue were furious. ²⁹ Jumping up, they mobbed him and forced him to the edge of the hill on which the town was built. They intended to push him over the cliff, ³⁰ but he passed right through the crowd and went on his way.

Why were those in the synagogue so angry?

It is here that Alistair gives the following maxim (in a paraphrase):

The salvation which Jesus proclaimed they [the Gentiles] need, but don’t deserve.

and

The salvation which Jesus proclaims we [the Jews] deserve, but do not need.

Brilliant!  I am not sure if this is his own idea or if it has been passed down, but this is the essence of one of the primary early church debates – How do the Gentiles fit into God’s plan of salvation.

The legalists knew the Gentiles needed the One True God, but could not comprehend them receiving it simply by faith.  Surely, they must conform…look, walk and talk like us.

The legalists also knew that Jesus’ teachings bothered them.  They were just too easy, too open compared to what they knew the religious life to be.

As a result, they believed that they deserved what Jesus was offering, but did not want it as he presented it.

Alistair Begg continues by making the comparison with modern Christians:

Surely those outside the church need Jesus, but they don’t deserve it…just look at how they live.

We Christians deserve salvation, look how obedient we have been!  We just want it to look like something we would design…a nice orderly, religion that can be left at church on Sundays.

I thought this to be quite a good, though basic, summary of one of the earliest debates among the church – that of inclusion of “outsiders” and how that works out in practice.

Early Church Studies Quote of the Week – On Romans

Image via Wikipedia

This week’s quote comes from Krister Stendahl‘s book on Romans entitled Final Account:

“There are few epistles to which we bring as much baggage as Paul’s Epistle to the Romans…My first admonition to those who read it is to forget everything they know about it.  The recipients of this epistle presumably had not read any Gospel, or any of Paul’s other epistles.  They certainly had not read any Gospels in the form we have them, and Romans came to them as a letter.” (9)

Wise words!  It makes more sense when one doesn’t attempt to make Romans fit into a pre-conceived theological system.

Douglas Campbell, Stephen Colbert and Katy Perry – Romans 1:18-32

So, what do Douglas Campbell, Stephen Colbert and Katy Perry have in common?  Read on and find out!

In Douglas Campbell’s book The Deliverance of God, one of the main propositions asserted is that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul is using a rhetorical device called “speech-in-character” or prosopopoeia – προσωποποιία (pgs 532-33) allowing Paul to create an opposing case in order to invalidate it and reveal the veracity of his own teaching.

Since many people, even in academic circles, are unfamiliar with this rhetorical device, Campbell goes to great lengths to explain and inform the reader just how effective this tactic could be when deployed in a New Testament letter.

The ramifications of this are incredibly significant.  In short, if Paul’s teaching is not present in verses 18-32 but it is instead something that Paul is refuting, then false teaching has been passed off as truth.  I will address the myriad of effects that this could cause in later posts.

I believe that Campbell makes a very strong case that Paul was using “speech-in-character” in Romans 1:18-32.  But I had a couple questions and wanted to dig a bit further, so I wrote to him in July of 2010 and asked the following questions.  He was kind enough to reply and also to give me permission to post up his responses here on my blog.

My questions centered around the historical interpretation of Romans.  Why wasn’t the correct interpretation passed down generation to generation in the church?  Why did the shift in interpretation occur?  To that, Campbell answered:

I think the shift happened as soon as the original situation was lost, when all the cues in context were lost. It’s a bit like watching a Stephen Colbert episode without knowing all about the politicians and issues that he’s making fun of. Satirical and ironic texts are very much creatures of the moment, and hence vulnerable to their loss of immediate context.

The church also didn’t generally pay much attention to contingency; this has only been recovered in the modern period.

The church has also, unfortunately, often had a theological viewpoint closer to Paul’s opponents than to Paul. Not all of the church, but a sizable chunk. So they wouldn’t detect a problem beginning with a harsh foundationalism. Sad but true. And this applies to certain Reformation readings as much as to certain Patristic and Catholic readings. The struggle for grace and against conditionality has gone on in every major church tradition right back to the inception of the church I fear. Paul understood grace, like Augustine, because he’d had a very very big involvement with sin. “He who has been forgiven much loves much.”

So, are you saying that the cues for any given document could be lost, yet the practice of προσοποποιια could continue and be recognized in later documents? (ie Origen’s responses to Celsus in The True Discourse)

You should be able to reconstruct prosopopoiia in a later historical critical reading. Also any irony or satire.

But prosopopoiia wouldn’t necessarily be coterminous with a local satirical target. Justin and Origen both wrote more generic texts than a Pauline letter.

It makes good sense to me that very early on the church lost Paul’s intent in Romans 1:18-32.

Consider that the use of the New Testament writings changed soon after their immediate use.  Romans for example was written specifically to the churches in Rome with a specific purpose in mind.  Yet, just a few generations later, that same letter was handled more like a theological reference as the churches began to universalize and solidify their beliefs and teachings, especially in refutation of error.  As such, much of the original intent and purpose was lost and the letter was read straight through as the teachings of Paul, and therefore the inspired Word of God.

The $20,000.00 question, then, is how does Campbell’s suggested reading affect a view of the book of Romans as the Word of God?  I do not see how it would change that in the least.  The only difference is that we would recognize that Romans 1:18-32 is a bad example of preaching, as the context or Romans 2-4 clearly reveals.

To that I say good riddance!  Seriously, take a look at this church billboard.  A modern-day manifestation straight out of Romans 1:18-32!  And we wonder how to be more effective at outreach…but that’s another post entirely.

Cursory Glance at Transitional Markers – Rom. 1:18

Over at Storied Theology blog, in his recent review of The Deliverance of God by Doug Campbell, Dr. Kirk stated the following:

Campbell suggests that the strong denunciations that begin in Romans 1:18ff. are not Paul’s own position, but the view of “a teacher” whom he is opposing. I just have a couple of thoughts on this, issues that need to be addressed before Campbell’s reading will be largely persuasive:

a. Campbell does not give a strong explanation of the γάρ (“for”) that begins a new “voice” in the letter. This is problematic not only because the connector seems to conjunct 1:17 and 1:18 but also because elsewhere in Romans the contrasting voice in a diatribe is clearly marked by rhetorical questions and the like.

And my initial response:

For me, the unanswered question regarding γάρ in 1:18 is could it be a verbal transitional marker for the reader as opposed to the typical grammatical function.

We know that γάρ is “one of the most common particles in the NT” and its “use in the NT conforms to the classical” (BDF 452), but is it plausible to see it as a transition to speech-in-character? Was such a thing done with γάρ – similar to speech transitions in Mark using ὅτι?

Or…

Campbell via Stowers states that the transition was typically both unwritten and nonverbal. With that in mind, is it not plausible to interpret the γάρ as an emphatic agreement and addendum to Paul’s intro regarding the gospel in 1:16-17? As though the Teacher was there, saying, “YES, and let me add…”

As this is a major transition according to Campbell, I will have more on this later…just wanted to share this to hopefully gain additional insight.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Rereading Paul – Romans 1-4

In The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, Douglas Campbell proposes a rereading and thus a new interpretation of Romans 1-4.

In his book, Campbell reveals 56 problems with what he calls “the conventional reading” that essentially define the standard historic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith.  He makes more than a plausible case that his reading makes good sense and virtually nullifies the problems encountered in the conventional reading.

In short (very short, as Campbell’s book is 1,218 pages with over 200 of those pages being end notes) he believes that Paul is refuting a false teacher who has possibly already been through Rome or is on the way.  Paul cannot immediately make it to Rome, and as such crafts an incredibly effective letter employing some of the best rhetorical skills available.

As such, after a brief introduction, Paul begins with a parody or “speech-in-character” (Greek  προσωποποιία)of “the Teacher” a well-known and employed rhetorical device.  The Roman church would have recognized the shift in character as the letter was read to them and readily sensed the tension between Paul and the Teacher.  This sets the stage for the Roman Christians, as they have not yet met Paul, and perhaps have not yet met the Teacher soon to arrive.

In beginning Romans this way, Paul can deal with the Teacher on his terms, under his controlled medium of writing, without fear of jeopardizing his own reputation by simply speaking negatively about his opponent.

So, here is a basic outline of Romans 1-4 as proposed by Campbell:

• Introduction (1:1-15)

• Transition to body of letter (1:16-17)

• The Teacher’s Rhetorical opening (1:18-32) (The Teacher speaks in parody)

• Paul’s universalization (2:1-8) (Paul’s response – Round 1)

• Awkward implications for the Teacher (2:9-29) (Paul – Round 2)

• The taming of the Teacher (3:1-20) (Paul – Round 3)

• Atonement and justification (3:21-26)

• Reconsider our forefather (3:27-4:25)

In comparison, here is how the conventional reading plays out:

• Introduction(1:1-15)

• Description of the solution in thesis (1:16-17)

• Statement of the problem (1:18-3:20)

• Description of the solution in thesis (3:21-31)

• Authoritative scriptural attestation to that solution (4:1-25)

• Description of the solution in thesis (4:25)

It should be made clear that Paul views the Teacher’s gospel as false and antithetical to the gospel he preaches.  He believes it to be so dangerous that he sends this letter as a preemptive strike to soften the ground among the church in Rome until he can arrive hoping that they not buy into this false teaching.

As such, there is a major paradigm shift in attributing Romans 1:18-32 to the gospel of a false teacher!

Indeed, many in the Protestant or Evangelical camp believe these verses to be some of Paul’s best and most definitive teaching.

There is much more that could be written and discussed on this, and I will have more posts developing these ideas.

I would like to see what your initial thoughts and reactions are to this interpretation.  I ask you to read through Romans in your Bible and consider if it makes sense.

As usual, comments, critiques, concerns and cheers are all anticipated and accepted!

Things That Make You Go, Hmmm – Romans 1:11-12

OK, so Paul is introducing himself to the church in Rome and he needs to gain their trust and respect.

How does he do it?

He writes:

“For I long to visit you so I can bring you some spiritual gift that will help you grow strong in the Lord.  When we get together, I want to encourage you in your faith, but I also want to be encouraged by yours.”

So, bringing a gift, that should help.  But more importantly a spiritual gift, something expressly given him by God to give away to the churches for their spiritual gain.

Then, he further expresses what will happen when they meet.  Encouragement between them – Paul to the church in Roma Rome (tip of the hat to my ancestors!) and the church in Rome to Paul.

Now, how does that happen?  What does it look like?

Paul knew that Christian ministry flows two directions.  The church, after all, is a body.  All the parts serve, nourish and enhance one another.

He shares and encourages others and the church shares and encourages him.