Re: Romans 1:4 off list

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 12 1998 - 08:58:05 EST


At 7:43 AM -0600 12/12/98, John M. Sweigart wrote:
>Good morning Carl:
>Three observations off list since I do not want to start up a
>theological thread. I agree with your analysis of the balancing of the
>members of the introduction. It may even be chiastic in structure.

I thought of that; I've often admired this wonderfully concise formulation
that underscores the importance of the resurrection for the empowerment of
Jesus as the Christ while leaving so many questions about the birth of
Jesus unanswered.
Incidentally, I wrote at such length as I wrote in the hope of forestalling
objections from those who might feel offended by the 'apparent' ignorance
of or unconcern with so important a doctrine as the virgin birth or the
pre-existence of Christ. It strikes me as wonderful that this little
two-verse snippet states what Paul seems to think is theologically
IMPORTANT about the identity of Jesus and omits so much of what later
theologians seem to have thought was equally or far more important.

>Secondly, the idea of the king and/or whole nation of Israel being an
>adopted son vis a vis the Suzerain/Vassal concept is a very helpful area
>of study that has helped me a great deal in formulating relationship
>between Old Covenant and New Covenant matters. Many shy away from the
>material because they think it some ways impugns Christ's eternal
>Sonship formulated in the early church's creedal battles. The verse
>under consideration I'm sure could be such a battleground.

Precisely. What came to bother me specifically in the course of the latest
skirmish between trinitarians and JWs over Colossians 1:15 was the lack of
clarity in the thinking of either side over what the biological metaphor of
the generation of the Son might really mean in literal terms.

>Thirdly, it has always fascinated me that the term Son of God was
>included in the Roman letter since the Emperor could be elected to the
>position Son of God after his death. I shake and tremble at the thought
>that my position in heaven could be determined by politicians!

In view of the current political crisis in the US, I shake and tremble at
the thought that my position even on earth may be determined by politicians
who care not a whit about the rank and file voters of this country.

Thanks very much for your note, John. Good to hear from you. By the way,
I'm sorry I didn't answer your last query, but I couldn't find any
satisfactory answer to it.

Best regards, Carl

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT