Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
lsayre
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by lsayre »

rgprice, I offer this (from John chapter 8) in support of your frustration.
37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” You Are of Your Father the Devil 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and uI am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
And then there is (per April D. DeConick) the more properly literal translation which states: You are from the father of the Devil....

Is there in this an implication that the Jews are the children of Ishmael? Is there anywhere in Paul's letters wherein he twists and bends things so as to seemingly arrive at this very same implication?
Last edited by lsayre on Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice »

So, in Philippians Paul claims that he is a Pharisee. This would seem to indicate a pretty specific set of training and doctrinal beliefs. I would assume that an actual Pharisee would need to know Hebrew, would have read the Torah in Hebrew, would hold to some pretty standard teachings of the Temple priesthood. But Paul seems also to have renounced his status as a Pharisee, so he may not hold those views now, but if its true that he was, he would at least have been educated on the standard views.

Here he is talking to a "Gentile" audience. People who, presumably, wouldn't know that much about Judaism in general, much less whatever he is talking about.

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold:

“If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have been like Gomorrah.”

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is by faith; 31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”

10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. [(gnosis)] 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ [(the Messiah)] is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

5 For Moses writes of the righteousness that is based on the Law, that the person who performs them will live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will go up into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This seems to implicate Moses himself as one who is ignorant of God's righteousness. One can see the basis of Marcion's views.

So to this Gentile audience, about whom Paul never says anything about "Yahweh", it seems that Paul is saying that Jesus, NOT Yahweh, is the one that is talked about in the scripture, every time the scriptures mention "the Lord". It almost seems as if Paul is making Jesus as replacement of Yahweh, and is actually thinking along Marcionite lines. The Jews are ignorant of the Highest God and ignorant of who the Lord really was. The Lord was NOT Yahweh, he was Jesus. But who is Jesus? Near as I can figure, Jesus is the Suffering Servant. I think Paul is saying that the Suffering Servant is the Lord, but even that remains confusing. But I'm also pretty sure that while Paul seems to equate Jesus to Yahweh, as Barker states, he's really making Jesus a replacement of Yahweh.

He's not saying that Jesus is Yahweh, he's saying that Yahweh is a false deity and Jesus is the real Lord... I think...
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice »

lsayre wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:20 pm rgprice, I offer this (from John chapter 8) in support of your frustration.
37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” You Are of Your Father the Devil 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and uI am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
And then there is (per April D. DeConick) the more properly literal translation which states: You are from the father of the Devil....

Is there in this an implication that the Jews are the children of Ishmael? Is there anywhere in Paul's letters wherein he twists and bends things so as to seemingly arrive at this very same implication?
Well yes, because "John" is really the Gospel of Apelles, not far removed from Marcionism. Thanks for this BTW.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by MrMacSon »

In the LXX, YHWH was often or overwhelming replaced with κύριος, Kyrios ie. Lord (500+ times). Conversely, every time the word Κύριος is used is in the place of the Tetragrammaton. Whether that happened from the get-go or evolved, I'm not sure.

Paul seems to have followed suit, often applying LXX references to YHWH to Lord Jesus Christ eg. Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13, Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:8-11; Philippians 2:10-11, Isaiah 40:13 in 1 Corinthians 2:15-16, etc.

Some scholars have said κύριος was at the center of the evolution of early Christians understanding of Christ and that use of the title κύριος helped define the relationship between Jesus belief in him as Christ.

Philo of Alexandria also apparently followed this practice of using κύριος for YHWH (see Genesis 3:23 LXX in Legum Allegoriarum 1.95-96, Exodus 6:3 LXX in De Abrahamo 121, and elsewhere (Philo also associated YHWH with λόγος).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:01 pm In the LXX, YHWH was often or overwhelming replaced with κύριος, Kyrios ie. Lord (500+ times). Conversely, every time the word Κύριος is used is in the place of the Tetragrammaton. Whether that happened from the get-go or evolved, I'm not sure.
Nobody is sure, so you stand in good company. :D Iaо̄ (Ἰάω) plays into things at some stage, and of course so does κύριος, as well as simply writing the name out in Hebrew letters or, apparently a bit later, in the nonphonetically related ΠΙΠΙ in Greek (to mimic the look of יהוה on the page). Uniformity seems to have taken a while to impose itself:

Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, page 88: 88 As it is, then, we can with some confidence say only that the Tetragrammaton, both in Hebrew and in other forms in Greek (iaô), might be found in manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures; that kurios may well also have been found as a substitute; and that the evidence is insufficient to establish a universal practice. In short: it appears prudent to conclude that there was no one way of way of presenting the Tetragrammaton or its substitutes in the Greek biblical texts of the time of the Apostle Paul. But importantly, the evidence of anticipations of the Palestinian Qere in the LXX Prophets and the usage of Philo prevent us from excluding tout court the presence of kurios in Jewish Greek biblical manuscripts.

rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Philo never seems to address the underlying Hebrew names of "God" in the scriptures. In On the Change of Names, and some other places, he talks about "God" vs "the Lord" but doesn't seem to address these as names, but rather as titles using the Greek terms. It seems like Philo was reading Κύριος and Theos, or is that not the case?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Bernard Muller »


12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? On the contrary:

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,

“I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation,
With a foolish nation I will anger you.”

20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”

21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

I think Paul was trying to illustrate that the Jews will eventually be preached and made believe the Christian gospel despite being "disobedient and obtinate".
To that purpose, Paul offered quotes from Isaiah and Moses as prophecies of what is and will happen. These quotes are of course out of the ancient context, but need to be understood in the context of Paul's times, and about his comments (the Jews will eventually be preached and made believe the Christian gospel despite being "disobedient and obtinate"), despite the fact a particular quote can be confusing on its own.

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:27 pm
.
Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, page 88:

... kurios may well also have been found as a substitute ...
.

  • From the commentary I've seen, albeit supported by limited asserted data, such as 500+ or 700+ time, that would seem to be a significant understatement.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:27 pm
.
Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, page 88:

; and that the evidence is insufficient to establish a universal practice. In short: it appears prudent to conclude that there was no one way of presenting the Tetragrammaton or its substitutes in the Greek biblical texts of the time of the Apostle Paul.
.

  • Surely, the evidence is there (whether it's been laid out adequately or not would be another matter).

    Moreover, "the time of the Apostle Paul" may be limiting and misleading: it may be prudent to consider what versions of the LXX looked at in both the first century AD/CE and in the mid 2nd century AD/CE (to take into account possible or likely later editing/ redacting of the Pauline epistles in Marcionite and orthodox communities

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:27 pm Uniformity seems to have taken a while to impose itself
  • Is there any way of investigating that?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:52 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:27 pm
.
Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, page 88:

... kurios may well also have been found as a substitute ...
.

  • From the commentary I've seen, albeit supported by limited asserted data, such as 500+ or 700+ time, that would seem to be a significant understatement.
Oh, sorry, I guess I should have quoted more of the context for that quote. He is writing only of what the very earliest Christians (such as Paul) would have found in their manuscripts. The LXX/OG preponderance of instance of using Lord for Yahweh comes a bit later. Early on it is harder to tell exactly what was there. Less evidence, and the evidence is more mixed.
Surely, the evidence is there (whether it's been laid out adequately or not would be another matter).
No, not that early. It is there, but only a bit later.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:33 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but Philo never seems to address the underlying Hebrew names of "God" in the scriptures. In On the Change of Names, and some other places, he talks about "God" vs "the Lord" but doesn't seem to address these as names, but rather as titles using the Greek terms. It seems like Philo was reading Κύριος and Theos, or is that not the case?
  • I'm not knowledgeable on Philo on this, sorry.

    But, are YHWH, God/Theo, and Κύριος ever not titles?

    Some of Paul's epistles have lots of Lord Jesus Christ

    I think the likes of Philo and Paul—especially Paul—were playing with words, and Paul comes across as baiting and switching in his use of κύριος (Kyrios)/ Lord for Jesus and use of the Lord alone. In a time of tremendous theological fluidity - probably the time and place—the region—of the most theological fluidity ever (perhaps matched by the USA 2016-2020: all hail Q)

    (Paul baits and switches about the Law from mid-Galatians 2(ff) )
Post Reply