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

 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:

• https://www.ancient.eu/article/637/roman-daily-life/
• https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/life.html
• https://www.unrv.com/culture/daily-life.php
• https://www.fcusd.org/cms/lib/CA01001934/Centricity/Domain/3209/12b_%20Daily%20Life%20in%20Ancient%20Rome%20Readings.pdf
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIjpx1ymRQ4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w375OMm5otM

The Biblical Language Center

 Ignore my previous post. In searching for resources, I ran across "The Biblical Language Center" which provides both online, asynchronous courses as well as live video, synchronous classes. You learn the language of your choice by being immersed in it as if it were a living (rather than dead) language. They have been doing this for 20 years or more and have a who whack of well educated and experienced teachers and other staff to provide the online and/or print resources to support their approach. I'm signed in to take the free trial online course in biblical Hebrew (the first 4 of 20 classes), just to see what they do and just how wholeheartedly I can recommend their teaching method. 

Again, I take my offer to teach biblical Hebrew and/or Greek off the table. This has me beat – https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/

 

You, yes even you, can learn to read biblical Hebrew &/or Greek

 

If you are interested in learning how to read biblical Greek and/or biblical Hebrew, I can help you do that. I'm looking for a few study partners who are willing to commit a couple of hours per week to meeting online in order to immerse themselves in specific texts from the bible. No previous knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is required. If fact, it will probably be better if you've never taken a course in a biblical language.

I have spent many years and countless hours studying these (and other) ancient languages in a very traditionally academic way. Officially, I have completed:

• 4 years of Classical and Koine Greek
• 3 years of Classical Latin
• 3 years of Biblical Hebrew
• 1 year of Biblical Aramaic
• 1 semester of Akkadian

I did this mostly while completing my B.A. in Classics and M.A. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of British Columbia. I am very familiar with the academic approach to teaching/learning these languages. And I am grateful for the opportunities I have had. But, unless you're pursuing an academic degree, I don't think it is the best way to teach or to learn biblical languages.

Instead, more people could learn more about these languages and even learn how to read key passages in Greek and/or Hebrew (and Aramaic, if you wish), if we took less of an academic, step-by-step approach and more an immersive approach. Rather than spending most of our time together talking about these languages in English, my plan is to jump into the so-called "deep end" right away with a small group of fellow learners.

• For those interested in Hebrew, in our very first session you'll learn to read this (Genesis 1:1):

 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

• For those interested in Greek, in our very first session you'll learn to read this (John 1:1): 

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Yes, there has to be some "memorization" of vocabulary and grammar rules, but we will do so as we progress through each text and encounter new vocabulary and grammar in our readings. And the goal is not memorization per se, so much as it is familiarization, so that you'll not be learning by rote but learning by practice.

For me, there is nothing like reading these incredible texts in the languages in which they were originally written! And along the way we'll talk about how these texts were copied, transmitted and translated and what impact those processes had on the text itself and on our understanding of the texts.

Questions I'm sure you have:

1. What is the cost? We'll start with 4 meetings that I will offer "free of charge." For those interested in continuing after the first 4 sessions, we will together negotiate what we all agree is a reasonable fee.
2. When will we start? We'll work that out when a few people express their interest, but it is my hope to start meeting regularly by mid to late October.
3. Will there be homework between online sessions? Yes, there will be some, but mostly focused on you practicing reading the texts that we are reading together in the group and on familiarizing yourself with new vocabulary and grammar rules.
4. What do you have to lose? Nothing, that I can see.
5. What do you have to gain? So much, including the satisfaction and enjoyment of reading biblical Hebrew and/or Greek and an increased understanding of these amazing ancient texts.

If this sounds interesting to you, please contact me, brian.felushko@gmail.com, before October 1, and let's see what we can work out in terms of making either a biblical Hebrew and/or biblical Greek RDG (Reading and Discussion Group) happen.

"Tales of the Earliest World"

I'm engaged in a long term personal project of reading "again for the first time" Genesis 1–11. As a major part of that project, I'm reading translations that come from the minds of scholars who are not, consciously or unconsciously, wanting to support a particular theological worldview. Rather, these scholars are experts in the ancient Hebrew language and are attempting to translate Genesis as an ancient Hebrew literary text.

To that end I have already found Robert Alter's translation to be enjoyable to read/listen to (I have at the audio book as well as the printed text), as well as informative. I've also benefitted from reading Richard Elliott Friedman's translation of the Torah.

Today, I began reading Edwin M. Good's translation of Genesis 1–11. As he states in his Preface and Introduction, I can so identify with his purpose in reexamining this text in the latter years of his life. He died on Sept. 12, 2014 at the age of 86, while his book, Tales of the Earliest World, was published in 2011, when he was 83! So far I've only read his translation of Genesis 1:1–2:4, yet it has been so helpful in both challenging and confirming my own translation attempts.

The posting about his death by his Stanford University (where he was on the faculty of the Religious Studies department and the Classics department from 1956–1991) included the following comments (emphasis is mine): "Known for his translations of and literary commentary on the Hebrew Bible, Good approached the text as a collection of ancient stories. He traced their origins in the oral tradition and their connections with one another."

Let me draw now on a few quotes from Good's preface and introduction which explain very clearly a perspective regarding this amazing literary text with which I wholeheartedly identify and/or agree.

1. "My point is not to set forth the Final Truth about these chapters. I am pretty well convinced that there is no Final Truth to them, which is not to say that they have no truth in them...One of my aims is to assist people to read with care and to make up their own minds more clearly."

My complaint with regard to many popular and scholarly books and articles about the portions of the biblical text is that they often present their conclusions as the right or the "most right" truth. With the popular books there is little effort to show how the author arrived at his/her conclusions, and they often skip the step of what the text may have meant to its author and the intended original leaders. In many scholarly efforts, there is so much detail that only experts in the original language, history and archaeology can possible follow their argumentation. Surely, there has to be a happy middle ground, with the goal of presenting the author's perspective in a such way that it encourages the readers to seek out their own.

2. "Not that I will be shy about saying what I think. But I deeply desire readers to understand that my intention is not to provide them with a pre-digested “true perception” of these stories, but to show what in my own ways I have perceived. I have no difficulty with the idea that one outcome of that reading may be a level of disagreement with me. Fine. Use your own eyes and mind with all their capabilities and qualities, and see what you see."

The key to me, here, is what we call "humility." This allows one to come to new and fresh conclusions and to hold to them without the defensiveness that comes from arrogance. It is a challenge, but one that can be achieved, to hold to one's conviction with humility.

3. "In fact, one of the surprises in pushing my way through the thickets of these chapters was how my perceptions have changed since I wrote earlier on the same material. There are some statements here that I could not have made twenty or thirty years ago. On the present trip through these texts I saw a good many things that I simply never noticed before, and I think some of them were for me at those times unthinkable thoughts. Other things I thought back then prevented my seeing some of what I see now. I am grateful to whatever elements of life and experience have made possible such change."

I can so relate to this, almost word for word. I, too, am grateful for the people and experiences that have encouraged me to stop being defensive (i.e., arrogant and/or insecure about my faith) and thus to approach the text with renewed humility and curiosity. The result was that the scales fell from my eyes.

4. "As the Old Testament, it is the first volume of a two-volume Christian book, and a great many people suppose they are very comfortable with reading Christian books. The New Testament, however, is also the product of an ancient culture, or a combination of them, Jewish, Greek, and Roman, of the first centuries of the Common Era. As products of their times, both volumes think in unfamiliar ways. Many are quick to gloss over this strangeness, partly because there is a long theological tradition of a doctrine of divine inspiration, which says that God made the book so it would bring us truth."

The first step in interpreting the biblical texts is to do so in ways that are consistent with their original contexts. To hold to a view of inspiration that necessitates biblical inerrancy is to put twenty-first century knowledge and understanding into the minds of both the authors and their intended audience. No where is this more true than in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. To quote another of my newly favourite translators, that is simply an absurd approach. These texts had to make sense to the ancients who wrote them, read them and believed them.

5. It seems to me that recent decades have newly seen the Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian, as an artifact in the public and secular possession rather than as the exclusive property of the pious. My issue in any case is not the search for contemporary relevance. As a longtime student of antiquity, I am most impressed by the fact that the Hebrew Bible, and therefore the book of Genesis, was not written for us. I suspect the thought that their work might ever be translated into any other language never came to the storytellers’ minds." 

The texts that make up the entirety of the Christian Bible are truly ancient, written a long time ago, in a culture far away and radically different from virtually anything that we modern-day readers have experienced or even observed. Words did not mean to them what those same words mean to us, even if one is trained to read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. There are numerous examples of words, phrases, grammatical structures and idioms that we can only guess at what they meant because we have so few examples of their usage in other contexts. Translators must interpret to translate, but that doesn't mean there are alternative translations that would be justified.

As I continue with this long term project, I will, no doubt, glean many important and often challenging insights from the likes of Good, as well as Altar, Friedman and others, whose expertise and attempts to be as objective as possible, I trust.

"That's Just Your Interpretation."

 "That's just your interpretation," is what I hear or read when someone doesn't agree with what another person says about the meaning of a biblical passage. Of course it is their interpretation! All thoughts about what any biblical text means involves interpretation. And the different meaning that "someone" gives is "just their interpretation." Interpretations are all that we've got.

There is no biblical passage that simply "means what it says," because every reader of that passage must interpret in order to know what it says. Even what appear to be the most straightforward passages require interpretation and thus "mean" a variety of different things to different people. Some interpretations may seem more reasonable than others, but even that evaluation of interpretations is an interpretation.

Take, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That seems straightforward enough, right? Yet, it isn't straightforward at all, if by straightforward we mean that the meaning is so clear that interpretation is not required. The reality is that every word/phrase in this briefly stated command requires interpretation. What is "love"? Who is "your neighbour"? What does it mean to "love [another person] as yourself"?

"Well, if we just go back to the original language, the meaning is plain, right?" Actually, no! Reading biblical passages in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, still requires interpretation and often demonstrates greater ambiguity than reading the translation. What did that word/phrase mean in this ancient language and in this ancient culture? Translators must make those decisions when choosing the appropriate which word/phrase in the modern language best represents the ancient word/phrase. In the translation, we have several layers of interpretation.

The most concerning thing about this to me is that we often take the translation we are reading and we assume it best represents what the original language and what the actual author meant. And it seems the more emotional a topic is the more we're are sure that our own translation and our own interpretation (or that of our denomination or favourite modern author) is the only right (or even the best) understanding of what the meaning that was intending by the ancient author of the text!

Not only do we then reject other interpretations as not the best, we often label and vilify other interpretations as intentionally false and even impugn the motives of those whose interpretation we disagree.

We all interpret. We are all, even experts, interpret. We have no other option. But what I think we must do is that we must come to and hold to our interpretations with a large dose of humility. In other words, "This is what I think Paul was talking about in (say) Romans 1:18–32, [a passage I am currently digging into] but I realize that is my interpretation, and therefore, I am open to considering other interpretations." Now, considering other interpretations does not mean that I have to throw away my own. On the one hand, hearing other interpretations may have the effect of strengthening my own without invalidating theirs. On the other hand, having an open mind may help me see where my interpretation was less than the best.

How I wish I could sit down with the apostle Paul and ask him to explain what he was trying to say when he wrote each and every passage in each and every one of his letters––especially, right now, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6––but that isn't possible. So, all I've got in the end is my interpretation. And all you've got is your interpretation.

And when our interpretations disagree with others' interpretations we can either choose to assert that our own interpretations are the correct ones and theirs are wrong. Wow! That's pretty arrogant, isn't it, that only we know (or I know) what Paul actually meant?

So, disagree with my interpretations if you choose. But realize, please, that's just your interpretation!

Genesis 1:1–3a "Again, for the First Time"

 What do I see when I read Genesis 1:1–3a “again, for the first time?”

1.     Note various translations

a.     Friedman: “In the beginning of God’s creating, the skies and the earth––when the earth was shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God’s spirit was hovering on the face of the water—God said, “Let there be light.”

b.     Alter: “When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.”

c.     NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

2.     What I see in the opening words to Genesis is that before God began creating the “earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep.” In other words, when God said, “Let there be light,” there wasn’t “nothing” but rather the “earth” existed in a state of chaos. This is not creatio ex nihilo (i.e., creation from nothing), but rather creation from something, the watery chaos that was the formless and shapeless earth!

a.     Note, please 2 Peter 3:4b–5, “For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.”

b.     The author of 2 Peter wrote that “earth was formed out of water…”! That’s exactly what Gen 1:1–3a says.

3.     But what about Hebrews 11:3, doesn’t it say that the universe was created out of nothing? Actually, no it doesn’t.

a.     Hebrews 11:3 reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

b.     This verse does not teach that “the worlds” were created out of nothing, but that which is visible was created out of that which was not visible. Since “darkness was over the face of the deep” and there was no light yet, obviously the formless and shapeless earth was not visible.

c.     What can you see, when there is absolutely no light? Nothing…absolutely nothing. But just because you cannot see anything does not mean that something does not exist.

4.     Bottom line, the beginning of the creation story in Genesis 1, is consistent with all other ancient Near East creation stories, where the gods (or a god) does not create the world out of nothing, but rather he creates by turning what exists in chaos (usually immersed in water) into that which is ordered and structured. For the ancients, the seas represented chaos, so taming/defeated/stilling the seas demonstrated the power of the god/gods.

5.     The authors/editors of Genesis wanted its readers to know that it was Elohim (God) who created order out of chaos. Compare Job 26:12–13.

6.     https://peteenns.com/petes-bible-trivia-bonanza-11-2-peter-was-clearly-written-by-a-godless-liberal-but-i-mean-that-in-a-good-way/

"God Will Protect Us." Really?!

Before reading my thoughts, check out this article from the Toronto Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/08/17/god-will-protect-us-alberta-prayer-event-now-linked-to-at-least-17-covid-19-cases.html

I have been a Christian for more than 43 years now. I spent 35 plus years working in the full-time ministry. My life and career has been about meeting together with other Christians face to face, individually and in groups, small and large. We would greet one another with hugs. We would have conversations together, pray together, sing to one another, instruct and encourage one another. None of these things have we been able to do for more than five months now. I am starving for human connection that is real life, not virtual. Virtual meeting together is like being incredibly thirsty and yet all I can do is see a glass of cold, pure water, but can not touch it.

But I, and a number of my closest friends have underlying, chronic health conditions. So meeting together is out of the question, for now and the foreseeable future. 

Yet I see video after video of groups of Christians meeting together without any regard for physical distancing, not wearing masks, singing, etc. Now, that is their personal choice...I get that, even if they are choosing to disregard their health officials’ regulations and guidelines. But what about their family and friends who are physically compromised? Are they choosing to stay away from those people or, at the very least, staying physically distant and/or masking when they are together?

I get that some believe the pandemic is a hoax/conspiracy, that it doesn’t exist, or that it is no worse than the flu and that the health authorities and governments have either overreacted or are purposely trying to misrepresent the reality of this ‘minor’ virus. Others believe that even if the virus is real, they have the right to live as they choose and run the risk of contracting the virus and thus passing it on to others. Or maybe they believe that the COVID virus is part of God’s plan to test us and see whether we will "obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Since God is in control, and thus he has either caused or allowed this virus to impact the lives of billions, there is no sense trying to resist him (Acts 5:39). And anyway, as Christians, true believers on the only narrow path, God will protect us as we stand for our democratic right to meet together (Psalm 91). So it should be “church” as normal. And those who call themselves Christians but choose to live in self-protective separation, they are living in fear and not by faith.

But I don’t accept any of that. However, according to the COVID conspiracy theorists and the COVID minimalists, the millions who are like me are simply weak-minded, weak-willed, weak of faith, and/or intellectually challenged and thus we are being deceived into believing the far-left socialist propaganda. As one of the world’s most prominent conspiracy theorists recently said, the far left is trying to, “Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible. Hurt God.” And after all, there are those who regard this person as a true believer and follower of Jesus. So he, and others like him, must be speaking the truth.

Maybe those who say they care about the Bible should listen more closely to what the Bible says about those who claim to speak for God.

“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)