Reading Romans for its Underlying Narrative

Romans is often regarded as the magna cum laude of Christian propositional proclamation. Who has not read Romans 6 or 9 and been impressed with the clear reasoning that Paul uses to make his points? However, is it right to read Romans as a tightly wound set of propositional statements of truth?

Narrative vs Propositional Knowledge

As I said in my last post, I’ve done some initial study of Romans with a narrative rather than a propositional structure in mind. I’m going to relate my findings here, but first, I want to briefly deal with “narrative truth” as it is talked about in Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?

Here is an extended quote from Smith’s book:

First, narrative is a more fully orbed means of communication (and hence revelation), activating the imagination and involving the whole person in a concrete world where God’s story unfolds. Second, Christian faith-unlike almost any other world religion (with the exception of Judaism)—is not a religion simply of ideas that have been collected. The faith is inextricably linked to the events and story of God’s redemptive action in the world: Christian faith rests on the work can only be properly proclaimed by being narrated, by telling a story. The notion of reducing Christian faith to four spiritual laws signals a deep capitulation to scientific knowledge, whereas postmodernism signals the recovery of narrative knowledge and should entail a more robust, unapologetic proclamation of the story of God in Christ. This is why the Scriptures must remain central for the postmodern church, for it is precisely the story of the canon of Scripture that narrates our faith.

Several important thoughts arise from this passage for a narrative, contemporary reading of Romans. First, the problem with reading Romans as a set of propositions that are true is not that true propositions are lacking in Romans. Paul makes propositionally true statements in Romans. He would have agreed to the proposition, “Man is only justified by faith in Jesus Christ.” No one is denying that Paul believed in true propositions. Second, the “recovery of narrative knowledge” is a powerful statement regarding the underlying basis of Romans. For example, a simple statement such as “God is love” really has very little meaning for us without the narrative framework provided by the biblical narrative. Any number of religions could say that God is love. The proposition is not distinctively Christian. But when it is set in the context, not of more propositions (though there are more propositions that are true about the Christian faith) of the divine acts in history that give shape to our belief and view of life, then the real meaning of the covenant love and faithfulness of God to his people through his Son by the power of His Spirit is evident. This same sort of idea can then be applied to a narrative reading of Romans.

Let me clarify one point before moving into a brief perusal of the main underlying narrative in Romans. It would be a stretch to say that Paul bases his entire epistle around the chronological sequence of the Biblical narrative. He doesn’t move fluidly through the book of Genesis and then into the judges and kings and prophets and so on. He is writing a letter to the community of faith at Rome, and as such, has many things that he wishes to tell them that relate to their specific circumstances. The opening presents his personalized greeting to them, and in Chapter 16 he refers to many people by name. He’s not developing the biblical narrative per se. But what I am suggesting is that underneath everything that Paul says is the assumption of the Judeo-Christian worldview and narrative, which roots everything that he says in truth and reality, rather than in the abstract realm of ideas.

 

Creation–The Beginning of the Biblical Story

In terms of the biblical story, creation out of necessity comes first. Genesis 1 and 2 narrates the story of creation. This is the beginning of the drama that will be played out throughout the pages of Scripture. This biblical-theological narrative theme underlies the book of Romans at more than one point. In chapter 1, Paul is dealing with the ungodliness that was going on at the time. He roots everything that he says in creation in verses 19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” While Paul is not in these few verses trying to structure the entire beginning of his letter around the creation story, it does provide the basis for what he is saying.

And it does not provide the basis in a modernistic, rationalistic way, appealing to some abstract truth about creation. Rather, Paul appeals to the very “things that have been made.” The story of Genesis 1 colorfully illustrates the beauty of the creative act of God in history—the birds, the trees, the flowers, the land animals, and most of all, man, both male and female. Paul further notes about those people who are wrapped up in wickedness, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Again, while certainly we can learn propositionally about the imago dei from this passage, what is it that grounds this verse in reality? Is it not that God in creation, breathed man into existence in order to have a relationship with a creature that is in His image? The creation narrative that underlies this brief mention of creation in Paul’s letter is highly relational rather than propositional.

 

Fall–The Biblical Story Encounters Tension

Chapter 1 also has the underlying fall narrative in view, for it refers to the effects of the fall that continue up to the present day. The well-known 3:23 also evidences this, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” However, chapter 5 especially shows that Paul has the biblical narrative in mind as his starting point for his letter. Verses 12-14 say,

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Clearly the fall narrative of Genesis 3 is in view here. Paul isn’t simply explaining propositions here (though there are propositions in there). He is placing the gospel experience of the Roman believers in light of the biblical story which relates the fall of man, specifically Adam.

 

Redemption–Resolution is found in Christ

Redemption is clearly evident in the book of Romans. Paul spends a great deal of time addressing the redemption in Christ. In fact, shortly after addressing the Fall/sin in chapter 3, he moves to the justification achieved for us by the grace of Christ. In Chapter 5 he expands greatly on the way that we have life through Christ. He places the work of Christ in the context of the biblical story though, by relating it back to the Fall narrative—“as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” This teaches the great narrative of the Bible so well—Genesis 1, God made a perfect creation. In Genesis 3, man fell, and with him the whole creation suffered the effects of sin. From Genesis 3 to Christ, the promise of redemption by the Messiah is consistently interwoven throughout Biblical history. Paul has this story at the heart of everything that he says, from talking about Abraham in Chapter 4 (who is the patriarch that is promised the Seed which will bring blessing to the nations) to dealing with the law, which covered a long period of Biblical history, and finally to Christ, who brought forgiveness to those whose sins God had passed over. Paul is not talking about justification by faith or any other doctrine in Romans in a vacuum. He talks about everything with the reality of the Biblical story in mind.

 

Restoration–History is Going Somewhere

In Romans 8, Paul addresses the restoration of the creation. Verses 18-23 say,

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

These verses reflect the creation, fall, and ultimate restoration of the world. This passage is demonstrates what is so important to the Biblical worldview/narrative—a linear view of history. God created the world, and He is directing it to a certain point, when he will restore all things. While the coming of Christ brought forgiveness and freedom from sin, God is doing more than just that. God is bringing the whole world to completion, to the praise of His glory.

 

Recap

The above could be considered a simple sketch of the Biblical narrative—creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. It is the model suggested especially by Reformed thinkers such as Vos and Schaeffer. It represents not propositions, but movements in the story of the Bible; not logical syllogisms (though Paul is a very logical and reasoned teacher), but the acts of God in history.

To perhaps clear up what exactly I intend to communicate by all of the above, let me ask a questions. What would be your impression of Romans if you were not Christian, had basically no familiarity with the Bible, and were simply trying to read and understand what Paul was saying to the Roman Christians? While I am not able to so strip myself of my presuppositions, upbringing, and tradition, I believe that it would not be unfair to suggest the following: one would realize that in order to understand what Paul is saying, he or she must understand something that lies barely underneath everything that Paul says, namely, the biblical narrative which reveals the work of God in history. When Paul talks about creation, you would have to go back to the Old Testament to understand what that is talking about, for the Biblical account of creation is very different than that proposed by other worldviews. When Paul talks about sin, the question naturally arises, where did sin come from? Usually that is regarded as a philosophical question (and it should be discussed on that level for specific purposes), but in reality, it is a question of story. What is the story behind all of that? Go back to Genesis 3 and find out. What is with the Israelites and Abraham? Go back and read the biblical story. What’s this about Jesus? God back to the gospels and read the stories about Jesus? Who is this Paul guy anyway? Go back and read in the book of Acts the story of how the church expanded. What is the restoration that is spoken about? Go and read the story that John tells in the last part of Revelation. Romans is rooted in stories, and above all, the story. It shaped everything that Paul talked about. He wasn’t writing a work of (historical) fiction; Paul was writing a letter to the Roman believers. But underneath all of his talk about creation and the fall and redemption and restoration is a grand drama that resonates with us because it is really our story as well.

What is (hopefully) noticeably missing from this post? Almost any mention of the Trinity. This is a problem for sure, because the Biblical narrative is at its heart a Trinitarian narrative. Unfortunately, I was not able yet to integrate that into this post. A few posts down the road I will hopefully put the underlying narrative of Romans in the context of the Trinity.

Reading Romans in One Sitting

I have finished my initial look into the underlying narratives of Romans.  I read through it once without stopping, and then read through it again, making notes along the way.  As I attempted to read it in light of Paul’s experience of Christ and the underlying redemptive-historical narrative of Scripture, several first impressions have been impressed upon me.

• Paul is a follower of Jesus writing a letter to the community of Jesus’ followers in Rome.
• Paul drenches his thought with the Old Testament, both in allusions and citations.
• Paul writes in light of his experience of the risen Christ to people who have also been changed by Him.
• Paul isn’t writing a theology textbook–he is relating the communication of God to his people.

These are my initial impressions of Romans after reading it with community and narrative concerns in mind.  Following this will be posts dealing with three topics.  First, the underlying, big-picture narrative in Romans.  Second, the smaller underlying narratives that enrich the bigger one.  Third, seeing the big-picture and the smaller picture in the first 8 verses of the book.

Challies.com Reviews Logos Bible Software

Tim Challies at Challies.com has reviewed Logos Bible Software. He gives the basic information about what Logos is attempting to do with their software, and covers the different options available to choose for software packages. Additionally, he examines the usability of Logos. He plans to post more later on the resources available within Logos. Find the review here.

Links Added

As part of my software/technology project, I will be adding links regularly to my links page that provide helpful resources for the study of the book of Romans.  I have added a small number of links already, and will be adding more as I come across them.

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? by James Smith is a short intro to postmodernism, especially as it relates to the church. As I attempt to read the book of Romans for today, I am going through this book, hopefully to see how the ideas of postmodernism can enrich the way that the church reads Romans. This should interact well with reading Romans for the underlying narratives that Paul may have had in mind as his worldview basis.

I will cite a particuarly compelling quote that causes one to reflect on the nature of the church and the role that postmodernity may have in recalling the church to its God-ordained position as a missional community of people who are being transformed together for the glory of God.

Conceiving of Christian faith as a private affair betweent he individual and God–a matter of my asking Jesus to “come into my heart”–modern evangelicalism finds it hard to articulate just how or why the church has any role to play other than providing a place to fellowship with other individuals who have a private relationship with God. With this model in place, what matters is Christianity as a system of truth or ideas, not the church as a living community embodying its head. Modern Christianity tends to think of the church either as a place where individuals come to find answers to their questions or as one more stop where individuals can try to satisfy their consumerist desires. As such, Christianity becomes intellectualized rather than incarnate, commodified rather than the site of genuine community. (page 29)

Hopefully Smith will flesh out exactly how this relates the ideas of postmodernity, so that I can better see how Romans can be read more beneficially for today. Additionally, as it relates to my first post on starting points, it is important to note how the above ideas would affect not just our communal living, but our communal reading of Scripture. If church is more than just a place for individuals to satisfy their consumerist desires, then perhaps Scripture is more than just a book to get self-help from. Perhaps it can be read for what is: the revelation of the Triune God to men of Christ through the power of the Spirit.

Starting Points #2

The last post dealt with the basic starting point for reading the book of Romans. I suggested that it is impossible to come to the text without presuppositions, and that we should come to Scripture as the community of God’s people that follows the Triune God through Christ by the power of the Spirit. So I am there referring to our starting point as followers of Jesus.

But what was Paul’s starting point?

Perhaps this question will shove us further in the right direction as we read the book of Romans. What did Paul presuppose or assume as he wrote the letter to the Romans? What guided his thinking? Was it a set of orthodox propositions? Paul obviously makes clear propositional claims about theological matters. For example, “the just shall live by faith,” and “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.” He rationally explains justification, sanctification, and many other doctrines. What lies underneath all of this? How can we discover the answer to this question?

The way that I will attempt to answer this question is to read Romans in one sitting, and observe what underlies all of his teaching in the book. If I was a non-Christian, with no conception of Christian orthodoxy, would a certain narrative or worldview become clear in Paul’s letter? This is what I will try to observe: is there an underlying narrative or worldview in the book of Romans. Once this has been done, an expanded answer can be given as to what our starting point is as we read Romans.

Starting Points

One questions that relates to the study of Romans, as well as to exegetical method, is “what is my starting point?” In other words, what is the place of reference from which I read the book of Romans? Do I come to Romans as one who has no preconceived ideas, with the intention of coming to a rational understanding of its teaching? The answer to that should be somewhat apparent for anyone who has taken a class in philosophy or apologetics. We all have presuppositions that we bring to the table.

What then is my starting point? Do I come to the text as a Reformed/Presbyterian or Baptist/Fundamentalist primarily in order to read the Scriptures rightly? Or should I come to the text merely as a Christian? How does orthodoxy fit in? Do we automatically assume the integrity of orthodoxy, or do we willingly let orthodox beliefs be challenged?

The above questions are difficult to answer, because all readers of Scripture (and any text) come from a particular cultural and ideological tradition that influences the way they think.

Without providing perhaps all the answers that are needed, perhaps the following would give a basic starting point from which to read the book of Romans. We read Romans as the community of God’s people, who are created, redeemed, and empowered by the Triune God, and as such, we have a vital continuity with the community in Rome that Paul was writing to. This is our basic starting point–as members of the people of God. Obviously the other questions are still there, but this is where we start from. Certain orthodox truths come out as we examine what the community is: the Trinity is essential for the Christian community.

Thinking about the starting points of Christian community and faith in reading Romans will be helpful as we actually read Romans, seeking to understand its teaching, and be changed by its truth.

Exegetical Method

The point of my study on Romans and therefore the point of this blog is to determine how the book of Romans should be read for the 21^st Century. In order to explore how to do that, one of the things that must first be done is to look at how exegesis is traditionally done in order to comprehend the Scriptures.

This exegetical step fits into a broader picture of understanding the Scriptures. Typically, the theological process is explained like this: First comes exegetical theology, where the laboring through the Greek or Hebrew text occurs. Second is Biblical Theology, which is placing the passage in the flow of Biblical history. Third is Systematic Theology, in which the student of Scripture attempts to place the Biblical themes into a systematic, logical summation of truth. Last is Homiletics, which is when all of the information that comes out of the previous steps is put into a message meant to impact the people of God.

This post will primarily deal with just that first step. It is important to keep in mind that though these can be thought of as distinct in some sense, there is overlap. Exegetical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology are all related, not completely separate entities. So while I will be referring to exegesis primarily here, biblical theology and systematics do come into play.

“Biblical Greek Exegesis” by Guthrie and Duvall lays out a simple exegetical method for Greek students. This is a workbook designed primarily for 2^nd year Greek students, so it lacks some of the depth that “New Testament Exegesis” by Gordon Fee has, but Part Two of the book provides a simple method for exegesis that will be helpful in talking about exegetical method.

As Guthrie and Duvall lay it out, a possible 12-step exegetical method would be this:

1. Spiritual Preparation
2. General Introduction
3. Literary Context
4. Provisional Translation
5. Grammatical Analysis
6. Semantic Diagram and Provisional Outline
7. Word and Concept Analysis
8. Broader Biblical and Theological Context
9. Commentaries and Special Studies
10. Polished Translation and Extended Paraphrase
11. Application
12. Preaching/Teaching Outline

As the exegetical process takes shape, these steps obviously overlap, and to some extent build on each other. This method could be organized as follows: Steps 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 all highly relate to the rigorous aspect of working with the original text, looking at the words, sentences, paragraphs and logical argument of a passage (which coincides well with a book like Romans, but not necessarily so well with a narrative). So half of the process is devoted to linguistic and grammatical work.

Step1 is obviously related to the personal spiritual life of the one who would proclaim the word of God to His people. This is an important step, and one which I am sure Guthrie and Duvall would agree should continue throughout the exegetical process.

Steps 2 and 3 deal with the historical and literary context in which the passage was written. For example, who was the author, when was it written, is it a letter or a gospel, and so on. These studies are important, and they are placed at the beginning of the exegetical process. This is because in typical exegesis, it is paramount that the situation in which the passage was written should be understood so as to properly interpret (and even translate) the text. If we don’t understand who wrote the letter, to whom it was written, why it was written, and in what way it was written, it will be difficult to understand the truths which the Scriptures are teaching.

Step 8 deals with the biblical and theological themes that may be referred to in the specific text being exegeted. This is an important step as well, for it places the themes of the passage being examined in the context of the entire biblical revelation as well as in relation to the uniform teaching of the Scriptures. Notice that only one step is devoted to this.

Steps 11 and 12 are the point at which application and preaching come into play. Only one step is devoted specifically to application, and the last step is the “pulling together” of all that has come before into a package ready to be presented to the people of God.

Here are some of the questions that arise as this exegetical model is examined, and as I consider how Romans should be read for today:

1. If Scripture is indeed a unified story of the redemption provided by the Trinitarian God through Christ and by the power of the Spirit, then why is there no point at which the passage is related to the work of Christ or placed within a Trinitarian model? This can be asked both at the level of a study of a whole book or on a smaller scale at the level of a single passage.
2. If Scripture in general, and Romans in particular, is written to the people of God as a community of believers in the Trinitarian God, then why is it that when we sit down to study a book of the Bible, we make no effort to read it as though we are indeed part of the community of God’s people that existed both in Paul’s day and in our own?
3. Why do we spend so much time on the nitty-gritty of the grammar and syntax to the extent that the big biblical and theological picture of the Bible and application only get one step each? Is there perhaps an emphasis on rationalism arising from modernism that has affected the way in which we approach the Scriptures? Should there be a shifting in time spent and even in starting point for a reading of Romans?

I will be examining these questions in greater detail in future posts. I must say as well that I am not attacking the traditional exegetical model as presented by Guthrie and Duvall. I am not qualified to do that. But I am trying to ask if perhaps that model should be enriched or expanded in order to answer the questions that postmodernity has presented. Hopefully as I examine Romans and the nature of exegetical and theological method, this will become clear.

(The Exegetical Method cited above is from “Biblical Greek Exegesis” by Guthrie and Duvall, pages 103-161.)