How I read St Paul.

[Philip]

Several people have PMed me to ask how I read St Paul's Epistles. In particular, there have been questions about how I avoid seeing Augustinianism and Calvinism in the Epistle to the Romans. I know not if I will have the time or the fortitude to engage in a long discussion of this, so I am posting this to give some pointers. Try the following


Get rid of Western translations of the Epistle that have been influenced by 1500 years of forensic justification. This is easier said than done. My suggestion is this. Pick you favorite English translation. Get a copy of the Epistle that you don't mind writing over. You can download a copy from numerous websites. You can photocopy your Bible. It's up to you. Now, cross out every occurrence of the word 'justified' and replace it with 'made righteous'. Replace 'justify', 'justified', and 'justification' with 'righteous', 'make righteous', and 'righteousness'. A little care has to be taken to have the English grammar be correct, but this will give you a translation that is more Greek than Latin. It will also be more in keeping with the Old Testament/Hebrew meaning of tzaddiq, a righteous man.
Put out of your mind that Paul is always discussing individual salvation. Much of the Epistle to the Romans is intended to show to the Jews that the Gentiles are also acceptable to God. Further, he spends a great deal of time explaining that the Old Covenant was misused by the Jews who expected to be righteous through blind following of the ceremonial laws. He illustrates that the New Covenant, of Christ living in us is the way to true inward righteous.
Read St John Chrysostom's commentary on the Epistle. It can be found here ( http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.toc.html). Our father among the saints offers great insight into the Epistle without falling into the trap of a Latin judicial understanding.


I hope this helps. I may check back to this thread to see how things are going. I may not. So, if you have questions for me, you may be better served asking them in a PM

[Cappadocian]

I certainly hope that you are right, although some Catholics refer to Anselm (who wrote around the time of the schism) as "the first theologian to understand St. Paul." They may or may not be right, but that is irrelevant because St. Anselm and the scholasticism that followed him are contrary to Orthodox Holy Tradition, and contrary to an interpretation of the Bible disciplined by the Church.

How to Read the Bible by Bishop Kallistos Ware (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx).

[moses916]

hmm....so 1000 years after St. Paul there was finally a "first" theologian who understood St. Paul.... forgive me if i misunderstood...

[Cappadocian]

hmm....so 1000 years after St. Paul there was finally a "first" theologian who understood St. Paul.... forgive me if i misunderstood...
Some people suggest the notion. See Frederica Mathewes-Green's article "The Meaning of His Suffering." (http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html)

[Spyridon]

I just did this in e-sword and it makes a lot of sense. I never realized how prevalent the word righteous and its derivatives are in Romans. Doing this made the text flow and I think it gave me a better sense of what Paul was talking about.

Thanks Philip. :thumbsup:

[moses916]

Some people suggest a notion. See Frederica Mathewes-Green's article "The Meaning of His Suffering." (http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html)

thanx... :)

[icxn]

St. John Chrysostom is the best interpreter of St. Paul's Epistles if you consider that the later was seen to speak in the ear of the former when he was writing his commentaries (cf. Life of St. John Chrysostom).

icxn

[Dust and Ashes]

I just did this in e-sword and it makes a lot of sense. I never realized how prevalent the word righteous and its derivatives are in Romans. Doing this made the text flow and I think it gave me a better sense of what Paul was talking about.

Thanks Philip. :thumbsup:

Is there a way to do it to all/most instances or do you have to change each one individually?

[Orthodox Andrew]

Get rid of Western translations of the Epistle that have been influenced by 1500 years of forensic justification. This is easier said than done. My suggestion is this. Pick you favorite English translation. Get a copy of the Epistle that you don't mind writing over. You can download a copy from numerous websites. You can photocopy your Bible. It's up to you. Now, cross out every occurrence of the word 'justified' and replace it with 'made righteous'. Replace 'justify', 'justified', and 'justification' with 'righteous', 'make righteous', and 'righteousness'. A little care has to be taken to have the English grammar be correct, but this will give you a translation that is more Greek than Latin. It will also be more in keeping with the Old Testament/Hebrew meaning of tzaddiq, a righteous man.



For your first point, how will this word replacement change our understanding of what St. Paul is saying?

[xristos.anesti]

For your first point, how will this word replacement change our understanding of what St. Paul is saying?

This is an excellent question.

I have to say that I can see what Philip means but to explain what I see is almost impossible.

Anyway, before Philip comes I will try to say what, I understand, he meant by it (and then he can both correct me and actually explain what he meant).



The word used is of a base δικαιοσύνην and forms of thereof.

Now, this is a very interesting word.

It means "Justifiedness"/Righteousness

The real problem is when these words are translated, not because of the actual meaning (that does make them synonims) but because of Theological baggage that comes with these words.

When one say JUSTICE, our idea of Justice is something that is systematically enforced. The idea that Christ came to justify us (legal sense), that is make our evil deeds (criminal deeds, deeds of lack of law) is not what the Greek Language implied. Also, the point of Theosis is not Justification (this legal sense), but Godinisation; that is, curing of our nature and making us righteous for the sake of Theosis, not Justification for the sake of paying debt (which is automatically implied when one uses word Justification - ie. He got sentenced to 20 years in jail, and he will pay his debt to society).

We can not be justified, for us to be Justified we have to be punished in hell forever (for that is us paying the debt to "society"), or in turn Christ being in hell forever (if He is paying our debt instead of us).

For if we are talking about legal sense of word Justice, then the one paying the debt to society (of God) is to be in hell forever, for that is the Justice (legal sense).

The point is that we are being made righteous, for the sake of Theosis, which is that by death Christ destroyed the state of the devil (his empire) so that we can receive eternal life.

It is not the matter of Justification (paying debt) but Righteousness (or actually -active form of this word, making righteous).

We have to shed our western view of Christ paying debt (for this is not the sense of the Greek words), and accept the View, of Christ making righteous; that is, curing the sick nature, restoring the old (original) - making it new; changing the fallen into risen; re-making the originally made that fell; lifting up the fallen (that by itself can not rise but need Him to lift it) etc.

Problem is that English is so - influenced by the meaning of this Justificatory sense, that it is quite hard to express what is actually said (in an avenue of presenting the real meaning to non Orthodox - people influenced by this legal sense).

The word for Justice and Righteousness are much the same, the word for Just and Right are, also, much the same; but - the sense of what the Greek says and what is translated into English (including all the weight of the implied meaning) is just not there in non Orthodox presentations.

Clear as mud?

Excellent!

Many years.

[Spyridon]

Is there a way to do it to all/most instances or do you have to change each one individually?

I copied the book of Romans to the study notes and had to change each occurance individually. It just took a few minutes.

This is just one section where you can see how the change makes a lot more sense.

Chapt. 4
(1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

(2) For if Abraham were made righteous by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

(3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that maketh righteous the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

(7)Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

(9)Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

[Philip]

For your first point, how will this word replacement change our understanding of what St. Paul is saying?

If you already have an Orthodox understanding of the Epistle, I don't think will be a change.

This is an excellent question.
The real problem is when these words are translated, not because of the actual meaning (that does make them synonims) but because of Theological baggage that comes with these words.


Yes. That is the main advantage, especially for those of us who come from a Western background. IMBANSHO, there are three suitcases in that come as baggage:


The word 'justify' and its derivatives suggest a forensic system. Western translations are influenced by the Latin translation and an assumption that St Augustine's reading of Romans is correct. Augustine, whose knowledge of Greek is debated to this day, read the Latin version of Romans and inferred a 'courtroom setting'. (We really can't fault him for this since the words in the Latin text are primarily legal terms. This is not the case in the Greek.) This lead to the Western idea that Christ satisfied God's need for justice and allowed us to be declared free of guilt. Augustine's ideas were latter taken to their logical extreme by Anselm and Calvin.
The word 'justify' and its derivatives suggest an illusionary change. Once you have a started down this forensic path, many problems arrise. Perhaps the most damaging is the thought that we are only declared justified. We are not actually transformed into righteous people. We are just declared not-guilty. This is quite contrary to notion of theosis and is responsible for the Reformation debated of justification by works vs justification by faith.
The word 'justify' and its derivatives suggest a static state. If we understand the Epistle in a courtroom sense, we loose the Orthodox idea that God is energizing us. Being declared justified seems to be a one time event or possibly a series of discrete events. But we know this is not correct. God is continuously working in us, energizing us. Replacing 'justified' with 'make righteous' helps emphasize the ongoing nature of justificaiton.

[Philip]

I
This is just one section where you can see how the change makes a lot more sense.


Here is a short passage that struck me:


Romans 5:16-18 (KJV)
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.[Emphasis mine]

Notice the bolded words. In the Greek, they are exactly the same word, dikaiōma. Why are they translated differently? Given St Paul's rhetorical style of drawing parallels, why should we assume that these two occurances of the same word so close together have such a different meaning? Certainly the second occurance, since it refers to Christ, can not be understood in a forensic/judicial way. It clearly means a true righteousness. In the Orthodox understanding, the first occurance also refers to a true righteousness, the righteousness that results from experiencing God's Grace, the free gift.

So, my version reads


Romans 5:16-18 (Modified KJV)
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto righteousness. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto righteousness of life.

Actually I would make one more change. The words 'judgement came' in the last sentence are not original. They were inserted by the KJV translaters to 'clarify' the text.

[Orthodox Andrew]

Thanks guys. That helps.:)

[Cappadocian]

Philip,


I really appreciate all of your hard work on this topic. It's important that any forum such as this have a person who does just what you do!:hug:

[Philip]

Thank you. I appritiate the encouragement.

[Shubunkin]

This is all extremely interesting to me, but (alas) I have an appointment this morning. I must come back here after that and study this further. :)