Brian's Blog: October 2020

In one of my weekly small group meetings we have been reading and discussing Paul’s letter to the Romans, a chapter a week. I’m doing my best to try to read Romans as if I’d never read or even heard of it before. I’m also asking myself, what the Jesus followers in Rome–who would have been mostly illiterate or at best functionally illiterate–would/could have possibly understood as Paul’s letter was read to them.

Paul knew the people to whom he was writing at least in a general sense, even though he had not preached the gospel there. There is little doubt that the make up of the Roman ecclesia* would not have been much different than the demographics of any of the ecclesiae* that Paul was more intimately acquainted with. Paul did not write this letter, or any other that we possess, so that only the fully literate and well educated could understand what he was saying. Paul wrote so that the common people, often less than literate, could grasp his meaning. I am convinced that his letter to the Romans must have been understandable to the “masses” and not just to the elite and educated. Yet, many modern day theologians refer to Paul’s letter to the Romans as a great theological treatise. But, is that really what Paul wrote? If it was not readily understandable to masses, of what use would it have been?

It never ceases to amaze me how complicated we make Paul’s letter to the Romans, deriving meanings from it and using it as a source of proof text for doctrines that would have been incomprehensible to the Roman Jesus followers. And we do much the same, though to a lesser degree, with the rest of Paul’s letters. It, also, never ceases to amaze me how we strive to complicate, systemize, and thus institutionalize Christianity and thus ensure the need for specially trained professionals who can explain it to the rest of us.

Certainly we do need lots of help with understanding the historical contexts and the ancient cultures in which the authors/editors and their intended audiences lived. Vital to my understanding of the meaning of the New Testament documents has been the work of historians, linguists and archaeologists rather than has been the work of most theologians. Mostly theologians have confused me, deriving meanings that I simply cannot draw from the texts as I read them. However, by providing as much clarity as possible on the historical and cultural contexts, historians, linguists and archaeologist have helped me to better understand the relatively straightforward gospel message and its implications for my life.

If this resonates at all with you, I would encourage you to “read the Bible again, for the first time.” You and I can understand most of what Paul was communicating to his Jewish and Gentile audiences, as long as we have some basic grasp on the historical and cultural contexts of the first century CE Jewish and Gentiles.**

*************

*ecclesia is the English transcription of the Greek word εκκλησια which means “assembly” (literally “called out”). Sadly it is “translated” in most English translations as “church”. However, the Jesus followers in a specific geographic location who met together are an “assembly.” Note: ecclesiae is the plural of ecclesia, thus “assemblies.”

**If you want to understand more of what Paul and other NT authors wrote, you must educate yourself on the historical and cultural context of first-century life in the Greco-Roman world. The NT world was so much different in so many respects to the world in which we live now. We can’t afford to ignore the political, economic, social, cultural and religious contexts in which these people lived. Here are some resources to get you started learning about life in the first century CE:

Brian's Blog

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Paul's Letter to the Romans: It Can Be Understood

Introducing My "Skeptics Believe" Website