So yesterday I was thinking (a dangerous pastime, i know:), and realized that it has been a while since I've been through the book of Romans. And then I thought, "Hey, why not walk through Romans on the blog?"
I've seen people do these sorts of series on blogs, but I've never done it, so let's give it a try!
Will you walk through Romans with me?
I know that many of you will have studied Romans at some point and so will have lots to offer. But this doesn't need to be a strictly academic "study" of Romans. Whether your approach is more academic or more devotional doesn't matter. Leave your thoughts. I just ask that your comments be centred on the text we are talking about; with Romans we could get side-tracked with a tonne of rabbit-trails and this is going to take long enough as it is :)
My goal is to post twice a week (Tuesdays & Thursdays/Fridays?) ...but I make no promises.
Most of you know that my preferred translation is the ESV and so it is likely that most of the time I will be referring to it's text. Feel free to bring in whatever translation you like. I will post a link to the text from "Biblos.com" so that you can select whatever translation you like.
WELCOME TO ROME!
Not the "Rome" I was thinking of:
Here's the link: Romans 1:1-7
Romans starts off in a typical Pauline manner: a run-on sentence. Yes, these 7 verses are one single sentence in the original text! [In Koine Greek there are no grammatical rules forbidding "run-on sentences" so this often becomes a translation issue, particularly when translating Paul's writings]
Here's the English translation breakdown (in alphabetical order):
ESV = 1 sentence
KJV = 1
NASB = 1
NIV = 4
NKJV = 2
NLT = 8
Kudos to those translations that managed to keep it as a single sentence in English (although some stretched it a bit by using a few too many : and ; - KJV).
Keeping it to one sentence in English is great, but when you read it you understand why some translations chose to break it down for us; these 7 verses can be a little hard to follow. But, this is part of Paul's writing style, so we'll just have to get used to it!
As I was working through this greeting I started trying to work out what his main point is (aside from obviously functioning as a greeting/preamble to his letter). There are so many asides (ie. dependent clauses) that it's hard to figure out what the main sentence is.
Nonetheless, I think we get a little insight into the passion that drives Paul here. He can't even introduce himself without preaching the Gospel! He has barely given his name and status ("slave" & "apostle"... I think "slave" is a better translation than "servant" or even the more literal "bond-servant"... what on earth is a "bond-servant?"... it's a slave; a "servant" who is "bound"; ie. NOT FREE) before he goes off and starts preaching theology. That's Paul for you!
So, anyway, will you join me as we journey through Paul's letter to the Romans?
What insights can we glean from this first, long sentence?
4 comments:
a bond servant is one who choses to stay with his master instead of being freed after 7 years...why b/c his master is good to him, he loves his master, and he fares well under him....(I wish I had the OT passage on the top of my head)
a bond servant was identified by an awl piercing his ear...
paul considered himself a bond servant, and also said that Christ "emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men" Phil 2:7.
i hope i haven't already got off on a rabbit trail....
I believe that text you are referring to is from Exodus 21.
I think it's possible that "bond-servant" might be tied to these OT passages, however, the confusion is that the same word (in both Heb & Gr.) used for a regular "slave" are used in Ex.21. It's not like there is a different word in either of these languages that helps us tell the difference between a "slave" and a "bond-servant." They are the same word.
That's why I lean toward "slave." At least in the NT I know that there is a word for "slave" (doulos) and a word for "servant" (diakonos). The word Paul uses to describe himself is doulos: slave/"bond-servant".
As a bit of a follow up here, I think the LXX supports "spazo's" definition of bond-servant.
In Exodus 21 in the LXX it is a servant (diakonos) who goes through this process in order to, by choice, become a slave (doulos). Hence, since it is a servant who chooses to become "bound" by voluntary slavery.
So, a totally agree with that definition of "bond-servant"... I'm just not sure if that is the best way to translate it in places like here in Romans since, without the type of context that is provided in a text like Ex 21, there is no way to know which meaning is intended since the word is the same.
I suppose the implication is that Paul has voluntarily become a slave? What implications does that have for a view on "election?"
My first thoughts when reading this really long sentence are "Oh dear, here's goes Paul again" and "His introduction of himself has a lot of theological banter, but his actual greeting is comparatively short." That's what I was thinking. And yes, I'm behind in commenting.
Post a Comment