#16. Romans 1:16 - A Brief Interlude for the Nerds: Is Romans a "Jewish" Letter?

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who is believing – to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well.

*sigh*

I hate this topic. I’m just… getting that out of the way now.

I’m calling a “time out” on the Romans study really quickly to discuss a practical issue. The question in today’s title is misleading. The people who ask it ironically can be stubborn and asshole-y. The people who ask it legitimately can be stubborn and asshole-y. It’s a lose/lose scenario and all you get are hurt feelings.

I’m not convinced that this is a topic worthy of our discussion in Christ, given the wealth of evidence in this letter that show us, conclusively, that both Jews and Greeks are being addressed (such as: the above verse.)

The letter here to Rome is for you and me, but it does not relate to the present administration that we are in. This is a very dense sentence, and I’ve established little to no groundwork in the articles we have read up until this point that could enlighten the new reader as to what I mean by that sentence, so I have to explain it here. The letter to Rome, as we saw in verse one, is breaking itself off from the evangel of the kingdom that is still in effect throughout the book of Acts, and serves as a primary building block for the secret of the evangel that we are going to learn here, presented in future letters (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.)

However, Romans was also written during a period of time when the evangel of the kingdom, as shown throughout Acts, is still in effect. There are two truths that we can grasp about Romans with this information:

1)    Romans will acknowledge truths stated in the other evangel at this point in time.

2)    There are teachings that Paul will unveil in this letter are brand new, and cannot be found in any prior book in the Bible.

How can this be? Well, there are teachings, such as indignation and judgment, and observations as to the Jews’ first-priority status (such as, the above verse, here,) that indicate to us that the kingdom administration (which is, literally, the “administration that heralds the good-news of the kingdom and prepares for its arrival) is still active at the time of Romans’ writing. However, the evangel Paul brings, which is presented in Rom. 3:21-4:25, is brand new. It is not mentioned prior to its declaration in Romans. With this, Romans clearly delineates between previously-established doctrine and the new information Paul brings.

But why does this happen? What’s the big deal with this argument?

Well, there are many (even in Christ) who inherently make the assumption that time itself is the main dividing factor, here, and not the content of the letter itself (which, by the way, is explicitly why God did not date any of these letters.) The administration that was documented during Acts was the kingdom administration. Man assumes that one administration must end before another begins, which is why they either chop off this letter to Rome and smush it into the kingdom stuff, or disconnect it from the kingdom stuff entirely and attach it to later revelation.

Man’s belief is not fact.

In fact, we have zero reason to assume that we must delineate something in a way that God does not. God can start new administrations whenever He damn well pleases, because He’s God.

Let me try that again.

God can start new administrations whenever He wants, and there’s no rule or inherent law that says that He has to end an administration in order to start a new one.

That’s better.

Okay, take a look at the picture to the right. As you can see in this structural breakdown of the New Testament, Romans to Galatians are lumped between the book of Acts, and Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. While “Acts” documents the kingdom (or, “Pentecostal”) administration, the “Love” letters of Paul (often called his “Prison epistles”) cover this current administration, that we (yes, you and me😊) are in right now.

So… where do the rest of his letters come in? Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians are their own separate administration. This is called the “transitional” administration. You can see it pictured here:

The letters written during this transitional period contain both information concerning the kingdom administration, and information concerning the secret administration concerning Paul that is established later in Ephesians.

Personally? I don’t think that this is complicated. I honestly don’t know why some would seek to abrogate Paul’s early letters. How are you supposed to read Ephesians without knowing of the salvation Paul presents in Romans? Conversely, I don’t see how someone can read Romans and go, “Oh, yeah, these Roman believers are undoubtedly Jewish by nature!” I understand that my feeling is not at all a convincing argument as to why these letters should be read one way or the other, but as we study Romans, I think you will see why I feel this way.

I simply don’t see a true argument as to why the letter should be read as a “Jewish” letter, as if it pertains solely to the kingdom administration. For example, these people will say things like, “Well, you have to keep in mind that Paul references the nations in the third person in this letter (Rom. 2:14!) So please explain how he can be addressing someone and then speaking of them in third person at the same time!” And these people will somehow forget that, in the same letter, the Jews are also addressed in the third person – which can be seen in the verse we are considering right now.

The people that state that Romans is solely for the Jews fail to recognize that Paul is specially commissioned to be the minister of Christ Jesus for the nations, and he explicitly states this late in the letter (Rom. 11:13, 15:16.) As there are verses in the letter that directly state the opposite of the claims made by this minority, it follows that this is an example of someone reasoning about Scripture instead of believing it. This is seen most notably among the religious crowd, but all are susceptible to turning the verse into something it isn’t in order to fit their own world view into the text (or to “discover” a previously-unrevealed truth.)

One more thing that I think is important during this interlude, and then I’ll return to the topic at hand. Many like to blindly blame others for “twisting Scripture.” I will not be blindly making this claim. If I say someone is twisting Scripture, I will be providing significant and substantial evidence as to why the verse is being twisted. When a word is changed, a sentence is altered. When you’ve written a perfect argument, any change makes the argument imperfect. While we do not have the original copies of this perfect argument anymore, we do have three of the oldest Greek manuscripts that nearly perfectly align (with marginal differences, and notes from a few editors of the day that enable us to piece together the full picture.) When someone is twisting Scripture, it will be obvious, as there will be clear evidence to the contrary.

In this case, the evidence is overwhelming. Simply, the secrets that Paul unveils in Ephesians were not made known until Ephesians. We know this because Paul says that they were not made known until his generation (Eph. 3:4-5.) More importantly, Paul reveals that the secret can only be made known through the evangel of which he became the dispenser (Eph. 3:7.) However, we cannot know the secret of the evangel without knowing the evangel itself (hence, why we are studying Romans first.)

By his own admission, Paul requires that the evangel concerning God’s Son is vital to comprehending the secret Paul unveils in Ephesians. This includes Romans; it doesn’t reject it. As such, there is indeed a division in the Acts 28:28 verse, but it is not a division that requires us to discard some of our apostle’s writings. Paul is, in fact, very clear when he points out that some part of the letter he is writing is not permanent (1 Cor. 13:8-13, for example.) Acts 28:28 is an administrational boundary – not a time boundary.

- GerudoKing