[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:	Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:	Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:	CSC32::J_CHRISTIE

Created:	Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1362
Total number of notes:	61362

664.0. "Comments on Paul's Epistle to Romans" by VNABRW::BUTTON (Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !) Mon May 03 1993 11:29

	An interesting (and in its consequence extremely problematic)
	translation of a passage in Paul's Epistle to the Romans is to
	be found in 11:9. The KJV version reads:

	"For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,
	what shall be the receiving of them be, but life from the dead."

	(IMO. if Paul had even dared to use such words to a Jewish audience,
	he would have been stoned on the spot).
	But, of course, he did not say/write them. This formulation is known
	first from Luther and has *somehow* crept into other translations
	(even though they proclaim Septaugint or Hebrew originality: so do
	no ask me how). How could Paul use such words? In this chapter alone
	he says specifically the opposite in 11:1 and implies the opposite
	in 11:16, :28, and :29.

	So what *did* he say? The Greek original leads to an alternative
	meaning which is more in conformance with Paul's agenda and makes
	more sense. The key words are "apobole auton.." Which makes the
	sentence to read:

	For if their casting away ..." (of Jesus as the Messiah)

	In other words, Paul is saying that, on the one hand, the acceptance
	of some Jews of Jesus as the Christ (eg: himself) as well as the
	rejection of the many of Jesus as the Messiah were prerequisite
	for his message of salvation to be carried out into the Gentile 
	world.  He is *not* saying that the children of Israel have been
	rejected by God.

	Similarly, the sentence ends with "their receiving.. " (Jesus).

	This (misinterpretation) of Paul has become the classic point of
	reference for "damnation theologists" who wish to profane or
	paganise the post-Easter Israelites. Proof that the pen is 
	mightier than the sword. These few strokes of the pen have done
	the work of a host of swords.


	Greetings, Derek.

	PS: I hope, after my Galatians commentaries, that this note revives
	    the balance; I do not hold Paul responsible for all the evils
	    of this world, and I do not *have in in* for him, as has been
	    suggested.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
664.1	Is is Romans 11:9?	SDSVAX::SWEENEY	Patrick Sweeney in New York	`Mon May 03 1993 11:40`	9
	Romans 11:9 isn't what you've written, at least not in KJV or any other translation I have. As Bob Fleischer pointed out, quoting is fine, but the citation should match the section quoted. In my KJV, Romans 11:9 is "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them." What Paul is explaining here is that while the Jews were God's chosen people, some of them rejected God.
664.2	Sorry: 11:15 is meant.	VNABRW::BUTTON	Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !	`Mon May 03 1993 11:50`	6
	Thanks Patrick. Of course, you are right: 11:15 is the intended verse. Put it down to post-prandial inertia. :-) Greetings, Derek.
664.3		CVG::THOMPSON	Radical Centralist	`Mon May 03 1993 12:01`	10
	I guess I'm missing the point of .0 because I see not contridection between 11:15 and the other verses in chapter 11. Perhaps you could be more specific? The chapter seems to me to be saying that some Jews rejected Jesus but that they can still accept Him. Also that the scope of Jesus' message has been extended to all people, in part at least, because of the rejection of Jesus by (some) Jews. Alfred
664.4		SDSVAX::SWEENEY	Patrick Sweeney in New York	`Mon May 03 1993 12:11`	6
	Alfred, I guess we're supposed to do an exegesis on the exegesis of .0. I agree the meaning is plain. Some of the Jews rejected God in Old Testament times. Some of the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The ministry of Jesus is for all. For emphasis, Paul explicitly calls himself here "the Apostle of the Gentiles".
664.5	A clarification.	VNABRW::BUTTON	Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !	`Mon May 03 1993 12:35`	14
	Sorry if that was not clear, but the Romans text has been widely interpreted to say the God has rejected Israel despite what the other verses proclaim. This would be even clearer if you could read the German (Lutheran) text to which I referred: "Ihre Verwerfung.." instead of "Ihr Verwerfung.." If you do not "see" this misinterpretation, that's fine. The fact is that this has been "seen" by many and has been used a a key text to justify anti-jewish attitudes (to put it much too mildly). I hope this answers your question. Greetings, Derek.
664.6		CVG::THOMPSON	Radical Centralist	`Mon May 03 1993 12:41`	9
	> Sorry if that was not clear, but the Romans text has been widely > interpreted to say the God has rejected Israel despite what This is not a logical conclusion. At least in English translations. And not in context by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone using it to justify anti-Jewish attitudes is clearly not interested in either logic or Christianity. Alfred
664.7		SDSVAX::SWEENEY	Patrick Sweeney in New York	`Mon May 03 1993 13:02`	7
	A Roman Catholic in the position of defending Martin Luther: Luther is not the original anti-Semite, nor the first person to use the Bible as a proof text for anti-Semitism. He's part of the anti-Semitic tradition that began in the time of Ramses and continues to today. The use of the Bible to support anti-Semitism isn't a refutation of the truth of the Bible.
664.8	Not logical: Observed.	VNABRW::BUTTON	Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !	`Mon May 03 1993 13:07`	23
	Hello Alfred! Of course, you are right. It is neither a logical conclusion nor, seen in context, reasonable. I did not make this statement after logical reasoning; I used observation and have read texts which give this interpretation. Some years ago, I was being entertained by a Catholic Missionary Priest, in the company of a Jewish friend and a Ba'hai acquaintance. We were interrupted by the Monsigniore (spelling?) who drew the priest aside and told him that, in future, Jews were not to be welcomed in the mission-station. When I later asked the Mon Signor (as we called him, lovingly ;-) ) he quoted (among others) this text from Romans. I was stupefied and felt only contempt for him. The Ba'hai (who became a close friend in time) showed immense patience and love and, after nearly two hours discussion, actually got the Mon Signor to kneel and pray with us to be forgiven. About two years ago, I attended his funeral: a Rabbi was in attendance. Greetings, Derek.
664.9		COVERT::COVERT	John R. Covert	`Wed May 05 1993 06:23`	24
664.10	ANOTHER Correction!!	VNABRW::BUTTON	Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !	`Tue Jun 08 1993 12:49`	25
	Sorry for the long delay, but I have been of work due to ill health. Now I have something like 2000 notes on backlog to read: I do not have a modem link to home. John, I congratiulate you on your German and - again - I must say sorry because, in the German I quote, I made a typing error (of exactly the same kind which gave me problems in my German exams a few years ago). My quote should read: "Ihre Verwerfung.." instead of "Ihr Verwerfen.." What Paul is saying is that, because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the Word was (able to be ) carried out of Israel to the Gentiles. He meant this as positive and implied that this was, in fact, part of God's plan. Paul has been interpreted by some to be saying that the Jews have been rejected by God and, therefore, salvation is not (any longer) theirs but can be offered to those Gentiles who turn to Jesus. That Paul did not - could not - intend the latter is clear from the whole context, most emphatically in the opening of the chapter in question. But his words have been taken out of context and misused more than once in the last 2000 years. Greetings, Derek.