BibleProject - Did Paul Actually Say That? - Letters E6

Episode Date: July 20, 2020

Did Paul actually say that? In this week’s podcast episode, Tim and Jon talk about how to wisely read the New Testament letters by asking key questions about Paul’s context. This practice, known as mirror reading, can help us read and apply these letters to our lives responsibly.View full show notes from this episode →Timestamps Part one (0:00–14:00)Part two (14:00–25:00)Part three (25:00–39:30)Part four (39:30–59:30)Part five (59:30–end)Additional Resources John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in GalatiansScot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of EmpireNijay Gupta, “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters,” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol. 34 (2012), pp. 361-381.Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, 59.Show Music Defender Instrumental by TentsPlaya by Mauro SommBubble by KVPale Horses by MobyA Case for Shame by MobyShow produced by Dan Gummel and Camden McAfee. Powered and distributed by Simplecast.

Hey, this is Cooper at Bible Project. I produce the podcast in Classroom. We've been exploring a theme called the City, and it's a pretty big theme. So we decided to do two separate Q and R episodes about it. We're currently taking questions for the second Q and R and we'd love to hear from you. Just record your question by July 21st

and send it to us at infoatbiboproject.com. Let us know your name and where you're from, try to keep your question to about 20 seconds and please transcribe your question when you email it in, try to keep your question to about 20 seconds, and please transcribe your question when you email it in. That's a huge help to our team. We're excited to hear from you. Here's the episode.

Hey, this is John at Bible Project, where in the middle of a series looking at how to read the New Testament letters. These are the small books in the back of your Bible written by the apostles of Jesus and written to early church movements spread out across the Roman world. Right now we're looking at the situational context of the communities who receive these letters. One thing we're going to look at today is how it's hard to know when Paul is saying something original and when he's quoting what someone else had said. And this might not seem like a big deal, but let's check out first Corinthians 7, first one.

In the NIV, we see Paul write this. Now for the matters you wrote about. So now we're going to expect him to quote something they wrote about. And he does, it begins with the quote, quote, it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman, unquote, but then Paul goes on.

But since sexual morality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband. But here's the saying, I'm looking at the New American Standard. They do not mark that phrase in quote marks. And so what it forces the reader to do is to put together some kind of logic for the flow of thought, because it doesn't market as not Paul's voice. The first Bible I was given as a study Bible was a new American standard.

I remembered struggling with Friskrithian 7, trying to figure out Paul's line of thought. His opening line is it's good for men not to touch women. And then the next line is but because of immorality, each one should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. And then, on that reading, marriage becomes a concession. So look at this verse with two different translations.

If one could indicate that Paul only approves of marriage as a concession due to our sex drive, while the other would indicate that Paul is responding to a specific question that the Church of Corinth had asked him. And since the original language doesn't have quotation marks, we have to do our best to figure out where they should go. Here's the whole point.

Paul regularly is quoting excerpts of previous conversations or what people are saying. I think the stakes are high in the section of the Bible because again they're so quotable it's easier to take them out of context statements out of context than many other parts of the Bible and so I think it really pays off to develop a thoughtful set of reading skills. So today we're gonna look at Paul's quotes in his letters and the importance of using a variety of translations and more. That's all ahead, thanks for joining us.

Here we go. We're gonna finish up the conversation from last episode, which is how to read the New Testament letters in their situational context. Yes, yep, this should be the last installment of this part of our conversation about the New Testament letters. So the big idea has been there's 19 books of the Bible,

though they're the shortest books of the Bible, because they're not actually books, they are letters. In the New Testament, they were written by the first circle of leaders who were around Jesus or who met the risen Jesus And then they planted Jesus communities around the Mediterranean and then wrote letters to them. Yeah, some are long It occurred another some are long-ish and longer than your average ancient letter Which we'll talk about that more in the next part of our conversation But a little fun fact that I didn't know in some

Recently, maybe the last five years or so, is that they're ordered by length. Oh, yes. Or Paul's letters, because there's thirteen Paul's letters, Paul's letters, they're organized by length, not by the order in which they were written. Yeah. And actually, if you read them in the order in which they're written, which there's a bit of debate about how some books relate together as Galatians the first,

or are the Thessalonian letters the first. Even if you can't decide, they're within a few years of each other. But yeah, if you read them in order, it's really fascinating, because you're actually getting little snapshots of the events of Paul's missionary journey. And it's really interesting stuff.

But Romans is the last. Oh, Romans is the last before... The last one he wrote. Before the imprisonment, and then you get what are called the pastorals. Okay. Titus and 1st and 2nd Timothy. 2nd Timothy, he's writing from prison certain that he's going to die. It's almost certainly the last thing that came from Paul.

But Romans is the capstone of his missionary journeys before the arrest and being in prison for years. So anyway, it's interesting to read the letters that way, but they're not organized that way in our Bibles today. That was just supposed to be a little fun fact and then somehow. No, it's still a fun fact. I found a way to say a lot more about it. It's even more fun of a fact.

Yeah, context, context, context has been the theme of our discussion. Where do these letters fit in the whole story of the Bible? We talked about that. That's one layer context. How do these letters fit into the context of the Roman world in which they were written? Yeah. We talked about that. And then these are letters.

These are actually written to communities of people who are dealing with very specific things. That's the third layer of context. What's the situation in which Paul was writing these letters? Yeah. Or John or Peter. Yeah. or Jacob. Yeah, also known as James.

Also known as James. To Westerners. So we talked a bit through, we just kind of looked through in Galatians and Philippians and in Corinthians and you kind of walked through this kind of detective cut of how do we see what the situational context was and it was all right there. Yeah, it wasn't too hard.

It wasn't very hard. Once you start looking for it, you can see it's there. Yeah. You know, I think a lot of Bibles often have a little summary before these letters. I know they do some of that for you. They tell you. Yeah. I think that's a common thing, she I've seen.

But then we also looked at a couple examples, or one in particular where you have no idea what the situational context was. Yeah, that's right. And at least you just kind of hang in like, well, I know what this was about. Correct. What was interesting about that example, which was Paul just mentioning offhand, this practice called the baptism for the dead, is that in its context of the paragraph as a whole, you actually can get his idea of the paragraph without knowing that specific background knowledge. So again, as observers of someone else's male, we can get the basic idea even when you don't know the particulars. But if we did know the particulars, it would probably illuminate why he brings it up, but it's just lost to history.

So it's like situational context is very helpful, but not always essential. I think it's very helpful, and I think we should consider it an essential part of the next level of studying and understanding these letters. But we need to recognize our limits, the limits of our knowledge, and the limits of the genre that the Holy Spirit has chosen to be the vehicle of God's word to His people, which is a theme that we've also come back to. Yes, why? Multiple points in this. Why did God choose this genre of someone's male to be His word to us. Yeah. Why Tim, oh, why? Who can know such things? I don't know. Whenever there's a question that's why did God or why does God? You're in. I am eating a murky territory. Yeah, I'm just like, that's a wonderful question. Let's just... Oh, the depth of the riches. Yeah. Let's just know we're entering a territory that isn't ours to know.

What we do know is what has happened and what the Holy Spirit has given us, and there we go. So what I'd like to do to finish is that practice, that detective work of trying to reconstruct the situation into which the apostle is writing. The method or that approach has been given a name in New Testament scholarship. So I want to just both name it, talk about a couple of scholars who have contributed

to helping kind of hone it as a toolset, and then flesh out one example where there's just a lot to pay off. Cool, and that's the book of Romans. Yeah, I think it may be helpful to do in the video, although we could choose any of the dicks that we've covered. But for the video, we're going to want a concrete example for each of these levels of context, I think,

who will probably be helpful to use the same letter throughout, as opposed to different letters with It's a different kind of context. So this method has been given the name mirror reading. I first came across this in the work of a New Testament scholar named John Barclay, who I'm just realizing we brought up already in this conversation. And we talked about mirror reading. Oh, that's right. And we talked about the phrase, even. That's right. Okay. Yeah. the phrase even. That's right.

Okay. Yeah. So John Barclay wrote an essay about Paul's letter to the Galatians because throughout in the modern history of interpreting that letter, people have gotten a little excited about their ability to reconstruct the problem in Galatia and who caused the problem and when did it start and what people preaching the other gospel. That's right.

The Messianic Jewish missionaries who say you have to be joined the ethnic Jewish nation to become a part of the Messianic family of God. So what they'll do is actually look for unique phrases in Paul's line of thought or something that will say, it'll be like, hmm, that's an odd thing for Paul to say. And then they'll reconstruct, well, that was probably a line from Paul's antagonist. And he's quoting their words, but back at them, throwing it back at them in some way. That happens in Corinthians a lot. Exactly.

Where he, like, he'll say something, and some people will say, well, that, he's just quoting. Yes. Exactly. Where he like, he'll say something and some people will say, well, that he's just quoting. Yes. Good. The people of that day. Here, let's take time to focus on this, because this is important. Okay. Look at 1 Corinthians chapter 7 with me. Food for the body and the body for food or... No, we'll look at that one in just in a half second. But so the first sentence of 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul shifts in chapters 1 through 6. He's been responding to things that he's heard about. Reports that he's gotten. Like, remember, we looked at in the last episode. He got a report from the people who attend the house church that Chloe is in charge of. So in chapter 7, he starts responding to things in a letter that they wrote to him. And so chapter 7 begins. Now, concerning the things that you wrote, and then the next part of the sentence is, it is good for a man not to touch a

woman. And I.V. that's a quote. It's a it's quoted. Exactly right. Exactly right. So this phrase, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. As you go on through the chapter in the next paragraph, he goes on to talk about how, you're like, it's good for men and women to get married, especially if it's a man or woman who, you know, has really struggles with self-control over their sexual impulse, which is like most humans I've ever met.

Yeah. So it's kind of, it's an odd glitch in the logic. Yeah. If you don't understand that what he's doing is quoting from the letter. Yeah. So there are some people who have taken Paul to mean or that they have developed a theology of that if you're really going to follow Jesus, you will be unmarried just like him. Yeah. And so it's good for a man not to touch a woman.

And this one's pretty clear because in the very next sentence, he says, but since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his wife. Okay, but here's the thing, I'm looking at the new American standard. They do not mark that phrase in quote marks. And so what it forces the reader to do is to put together some kind of logic for the flow of thought because it doesn't mark it as not Paul's voice. Does that make sense? I remember reading this.

The first Bible I was given as a study Bible was a new American standard. I remembered struggling with 1 Corinthians 7, trying to figure out Paul's line of thought. Because for the longest time it was just like what? His opening line is it's good for men not to touch women. You're contradicting yourself. Yeah, and then the next line is but because of immorality, each one should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband. And then on that reading, marriage becomes a concession. The ideal is not to get married, but because you're all like, you know, such slaves to your self-pain.

What's interesting is, you should get married. An NAS B, verse two starts with a butt. Yes. And that even like makes it seem more like a concession. Exactly. However, if the phrase, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, is a lion from some Corinthians who are promoting celibacy as superior to marriage, and it makes sense why he would begin, verse two, with a butt, to contrast what they're saying. Here's the whole point. Paul regularly is quoting excerpts of previous conversations or what people are saying. But in the original language, there's no quotation marks. There are no quotation marks.

It's an interpretive decision. Now some of those are controversial. Yeah. I mean, this one is probably a bit controversial, whether or not it's a quote or not, but I'm trying to remember specifically about the food one, I think. There was just, I remember really sensing the like, who knows. I couldn't discern. Yeah, that the previous paragraph before chapter 7 is the last paragraph of chapter 6 in 1 Corinthians. And chapter 6 verse 12 begins with this line,

all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I won't be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. However, the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord and the Lord is for the body. So there's something happening here. He repeats this line twice, all things are laughable for me, and then you go on to contradict it. All things are laughable, but not everything's profitable. All things laughable, I won't be mastered. Then this thing about how food is for the stomach and God will do away with both of them,

and then he starts talking about the body and immorality. So if you look at the different modern translations, what you'll notice is that different translations put quotation marks. Are you looking at the new international version? Actually, I just switched to NASB. There's no quotes. No quotes. Yeah.

NAS won't do that. They want the reader to have to do the homework. Right. ESV or the NIV. NIV has quotes. I switched to NASB because you read it lawful for me to... What did you, how did you read it? All things are lawful.

All things are lawful. And then NIV says, I have the right to do anything. Oh, yeah. Yeah, oh. That's kind of like a paraphrase. Yeah, that's a bit of a paraphrase. Yeah. And but that's in quotes.

Yep. Then not everything is beneficial is not in quotes. Correct. So in other words, they're helping you see that Paul is quoting here, again, somebody or some group in the Church of Corinth that believes because of their liberation in Christ, they have a new moral freedom. That in Paul's opinion, they are misusing and hurting themselves and other people.

Now, what I want to know is does Paul agree I have the right to do anything or not? Well, okay, so here in this context, what this is going to be is particularly about there's some men in the Church of Corinth who are continuing the tradition of attending banquets at temples down the street. And these are mostly, not all of them, some of them have female priestesses. Most of them, this is a male, all male deal, and the whole night of worship and sacrifice. The bank would end with a lot of wine and then income the temple prostitutes. So just lots of sex. And so Paul recommends for the most part, later on the letter, just staying away from the temples.

But these people seem to have the conviction that, listen, I don't believe in Zeus or Apollo. I don't think that idol statue there has any power over me, but my friends are going down there. I have freedom in Christ to let go. So Apollo will say, okay, right? So technically, you're not in danger

of any spiritual power there, but some things are really foolish and are going to lead you to being enslaved to really destructive habits. That's his point. And so here's what's interesting. In verse 12, he's almost certainly quoting somebody at Corinth, I have everything is lawful for me. Paul, contrasts or disagrees, but not everything's beneficial. He quotes him again. Now how are you pretty certain that it's a quote? Oh, or why is it IV? Certain it's a quote. You just have to get into take a deep dive into the interpretation of the letter. The fact that it's the same identical phrase that he immediately contradicts it. Here's

the thing, but not all things. Here's all things are awful, but I won't be mastered. And here's where it gets really interesting for his 13. Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food. And I've he marks that as a quote. Yes. In other words, this would be a line where he's quoting, I think essentially saying. The philosophers of the day are.

Yeah, people debate about what this line actually is. But it seems to be that, listen, food is natural, it's just material, it goes into my stomach, my stomachs for food. But then the immediate starts talking about sex. Paul starts, he contrasts that statement, it starts talking about sex. The body isn't for immorality.

I think the logic of this line, there's a lot of smart people, but the people on the translation committees disagree, that think that the quote actually extends longer. Here would be the quote of the Corinthians in verse 13. Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food. Listen, God's gonna do away with all of it. And NIV, that's the full quote.

In NIV? Oh, hey, good for them. Hmm. Wow, I forgot about that. Yeah, that's great. Yeah. Okay, good for them. Okay, I forgot about that. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, okay, good for them. Okay, I think the NIV is correct.

And so do a lot of other really important scholars on first Corinthians. The ESV has the quote end in the middle of verse 13. Food is for the stomach and the stomachs for food and quote. End quote. And then Paul was saying, Listen, God's gone to destroy them both. So in other words, what's that debate here is,

does God care what I do with my body? Does it matter what I do with my body regard to food or sex? If you read the ESV, Paul quotes a line, food is meant for the stomach, the stomach is meant for food. That's what the Corinthians saying. And then Paul's response in the ESV is, listen, God's going to destroy food and the body. Which is really not Paul's theology. No, well, depends on how you understand his theology.

Yeah, if you think that Paul has a world view in which the physical world is inherently bad, and has to be destroyed so that a disembodied, non-physical, spiritual reality that's eternity is truly what's good, then this would make good sense. You can, the ESV's interpretation. But Paul believes in a resurrected body. Yes. Now, I guess the question is, does he has to destroy one body to create the other? So I guess you could still say that that's what Paul means.

But it seems like the point here, as you were saying is what you do with your body is important. Yes, that's right. And so he wouldn't just be like, I gots going to destroy the body. If your body's not important, that wouldn't be your point. Correct. And because what he's about to go on and say is your body is really important. Yeah, you're the temple of God. Yeah.

So, okay, let's go with the NIV then. You Corinthians say, food is for the stomach, the stomachs for food. Listen, God's going to destroy it both. I can overeat, I can sleep with a prostitute. This body's going away. Why does God care what I do with a body? Why does God care what we do with a sinking? Why does God care what we do with this sinking ship? Surely God wouldn't care about that.

It's of no value for eternity because eternity is not earthly and Paul and the NFE's reading which I and a lot of people smarter than me think is correct Paul disagrees radically. He says no. Listen first of all the body is not designed to be joined sexually to somebody who haven't made a marriage covenant to. He assumes that they know what he thinks about that. Then he says, listen, the body is for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead. And he will raise us too. And don't you know, your bodies are members of the Messiah himself.

So you can see his logic here. He cares about the body. Your body is destined for transformation and resurrection. And your resurrection body is connected to his body. It's connected to Jesus' resurrection body. And so what you do with your present body as a member of the Messiah's people is actually you're doing it to Jesus' body. And so what you do with your present body as a member of the Messiah's people is actually you're doing it to G.S. as body. It's not your body. Your body matters when it comes to food or sex. Anyhow, the whole point is Paul is in more than one letter

quoting and in more than one place quoting from excerpts of their letters of the people who write to him, or the people he's writing to. And that is really tricky. Dude, tell me about it. Because like anytime I don't like what Paul's saying, I could just say, I always quote someone else. Okay.

Sure. So you have to build up criteria. Here it's fairly clear because if you try and put together the logic of the paragraph, it's really difficult if this is all Paul's voice. So the whole question is, this is why John Barclay, all the way back to this thing. If we go back, this is why John Barclay was compelled to bring a little order to the chaos. And create key questions and criteria to help you know that you are really,

what Paul is saying really is in response to. Yeah, the guardrails. The guardrails. That's right. This is also a really great example of the value of using more than one translation. One of the most common questions I hear coming through is what translation of the Bible should I read? Yes. Yeah, and I think it'd be a great video to make one day. Yes, good point, but Your answer is always use as many as you can. Yeah, that's right as you dare And the translations are like golf clubs. Yeah, that's right And they all have a different purpose. Yeah, and the NASB here says Hey, our purpose is to make you work for it. Yeah. We want, we want to just be as close to the originals possible. But then we have the NIV and the ESV are both saying, no, we're going to, we're going to help you a bit more.

Mm-hmm. But then by reading them both, you realize, oh, there's a discrepancy here. Mm-hmm. And so it's not all the all the oxen free words like I could put quotes wherever you're kind of like you've got these Translation bodies. Yeah, who have said here's what we think and then here's what we think and now you're in the playing field That's right. You know where everyone's been. That's right. And this is a issue specific to the New Testament letters where Paul Has to address people in these churches who disagree with him and who have let Paul know about their disagreement. And so he has to engage them. Like you would in a letter.

I mean, it makes perfect sense. Right. So, we're talking about a handful of passages throughout all of his letters where this is really an interpretive challenge. So John Barclay wrote essay and then another scholar who's in the Portland area, his name's Nijay Gupta, wrote an essay just a few years ago, well 2012, I guess, also kind of honing in and dialing in these criteria, I learned a lot from this. But some mirror reading, we've already talked about what... The side of the mirror?

Yeah, that's right. Alright, that's right. So here are some criteria that these scholars propose when we hypothesize about the situation that the apostles writing into. And this isn't just for when they're quoting or not quoting, this is for how do we figure out the situational context? Yep, that's right, that's right.

So the first thing they go to is what kind of utterance, somehow the moment I'm saying the word utterance, it sounds funny. It is a funny word. It's a very funny word. I guess it's because the word utter. Utter? Oh, you mean like a cow's utter? Yeah. So. It is a funny word. It's a very funny word. I guess it's because the word utter. Oh, you mean like a cow's utter?

Yeah. So the language is so funny. I'm saying utterance, but what I'm thinking of is a cow's utter. And that's so weird. It's all, well, it's just a word you don't use. Yeah, that's right. Utterance. In other words, um.

What does that mean, the type of utterance? Okay, I'm sorry. Let's just change the type of statement. The type of statement? The letters are her prose discourse, pieces of literature that make points, develop and support those points in a developing line of thought

to communicate something. Right. Series of statements. A series of statements, that's right. And so there's types of statements. Correct. Right off the bat, help me understand that. What do you mean there's types of statements?

Types of statements here. Let's just like a really common like There's a question or there's a answer. Those are two different types of statements. Correct question answer assertion denial a command a prohibition. Yeah, I mean there's yeah a very large laundry list of types of statements I've never thought about categorizing statements. Oh, what kind of statement am I making right now? You get the point. Yes. You get the point.

Every sentence that you utter is a type of statement. The question is, let's say in one of Paul's letters, he keeps hammering a point home with lots of assertions. And an assertion is, this is true. Let's give some examples here. letters, he keeps hammering a point home with lots of assertions. And an assertion is, this is true. Let's give some examples here. The letter to the Galatians. Well hold on, an assertion saying there's many types of statements,

that's an assertion. That's true, yeah. You're making a claim about what is true. Okay. Yeah, an assertion is to assert something that you believe is true. Paul's letter to the Galatians opens up saying, Paul, in a puzzle, I was sent not from humans or by a human. I was sent by Jesus the Messiah and God the Father who raised him from the dead. To all the brothers and sisters.

In the Church of the Galatians. So he introduces himself feeling like he needs to make a strong assertive claim About his about his officials to speak for Jesus. Yeah, yeah So right there you can infer why does he need to say that? There must be somebody around Galatia who's saying that Paul he's just a human with his own opinions and you shouldn't listen to him So you're saying if there's an assertion, you could guess that situationally, that assertion, Paul is countering someone else's assertion. Correct.

Or at least we should be open to that. In other words, he's not writing these letters just to wax eloquent onto the all the same ethics. It's not off. Okay. There are things that motivate him. That's true because if you're reading a theological essay, there's going to be all sorts of assertions that are just trying to create a philosophical paradigm, infrastructure, theoretical kind of complete statement. Yeah. Yeah. And you're saying in a letter, yeah, you don't really tend to do that. For the most part, there are many criteria and these all have to work together Okay, to make a compelling case for a mirror reading, you know of the situation in Galatia

You need a whole bunch of mutually supporting ideas. Okay, right a criteria But this is one of them. Yeah, Paul's my assertion. Mm-hmm. There might be a teaching of the opposite These countering. Yep. Here's just another example. Paul's letter to Timothy, the first letter to Timothy, opens up the first paragraph after the kind of necessary pleasantries of like Paul and Apostle to Timothy, Grace and Mercy, this is standard introductions, first paragraph. Okay, so remember I urged you in Macedonia and I went to Macedonia. Stay in Ephesus so you can command certain people to stop teaching bad theology and stop devoting themselves to myths and endless

genealogies. These promote controversial speculation. They don't advance God's work. That's the first thing. So, this is a command given to Timothy, but very clearly, here it's a command implies that people are either doing or not doing the thing, the people are doing. I guess it starts with a command. It's actually a prohibition, isn't it?

I want people to stop doing this. It presumes like, oh, there's a bunch of people doing this. That's why he has to write it. How many types of statements is Barclay like Alleyn? More than I have here, I just have four. Like how geeky does this get? Oh, well, I just think what you're trying to do is fill out as many different kinds of statements.

And then the next criteria is the tone of these statements, then the next criteria is the frequency of these statements. So if there's a certain denial. How much freedom do I have? Like because I don't have a complete list of statements and let's say I'm not gonna read Barclay. Yeah. But I want to take this principle. It seems like, you know, I understand language. I use language. So I could just be like, okay, what kind of statement is this? And I could come up with my own words and I could get pretty far with figuring out, okay, because right here you've got command or prohibition and assertion and we were bouncing around being like, like, oh, is a command? Actually, it was a prohibition. Oh, actually, there's an assertion at the

end of that too about reality. Well, I was mistaken about the command. It was actually, it's a prohibition. So it's clearly a prohibition. But the command in there, he starts with a command. A prohibition is I want people to stop doing this. A command is I want people to do this. Well, he said he commands. Yes, that's right. Someone to go somewhere. Yeah, I want Timothy, I asked you to stay in Ephesus so that you could command people. You stay in Ephesus command.

Yeah, that's right. So that you could command people to do this prohibition. To exactly. And then he ends it with an assertion. Oh, that's true, yeah. So you put that all that together and be like, okay, there's people doing a certain thing. Paul has this view on it and this is what he wants to have happen. Yeah.

He does it with great frequency throughout the letter. People teaching bad theology based on their interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, especially the genealogies. Hmm. That's what he's talking about here. The next paragraph, he goes on to talk about how the Torah is great, but these bad theologians want to be teachers of the Torah, and they're introducing division, it's terrible. And so, as you go throughout first Timothy, what you're going to see is there's a certain

group of men, there's a certain group of women who are creating a lot of problems in Ephesus based on their bad interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis. Almost every chapter of first Timothy, this problem is going to surface. And so what you have to do is look at the type of statements. You have to look at the tone, Barclays second criteria. Look at the tone. Does he, is he just like kind of, you know, feel calm about it? This is also probably a time to use a lot of different translations.

Oh, interesting. Because tone. Oh yeah, can differ. I mean, it's really hard to convey tone in written language. Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. Here, let me just finish the criteria as a whole. Okay.

And then we can do more examples if we want. The next criteria is frequency. In other words, does this just come up in one paragraph in the letter? Or does it, this issue keep coming up? And in first Timothy, it's a good, that's a great example, because bad interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis keep coming up throughout the letter. Specifically, Genesis? Or the group of people associated with that bad theology,

and there's a group of men, and there's a group of women. A fourth criteria for Barclay, as he says, consistency. This is interesting. In other words, in some letters, like in First Corinthians, Paul is explicitly shifting topics, topic to topic to topic. Now about the matters that you wrote to me. I got this report from Chloe's people. Now about the matters of the spirit. Here's what I've heard about you. This is how Corinthians letters... So basically, Corinthians Church is just full of problems. And the whole debate is, is there one group or one type of person or theology underneath it all?

It seems like there's a whole bunch of different things. But, for example, in first effulonians, there's a broad set of issues that Paul addresses, but it does seem like you can tie it all together to one underlying problem, which is people who are overzealous about predictions about the return of Jesus and are getting really fanatical and irresponsible with it.

And this really explains almost everything he has to address in the letter. It's really interesting. So consistency, can I paint a picture of all of the different things that Paul has to address? Sir, common threads. Sir, common threads. Yep. And then another criteria is what Barclay calls, historical plausibility. Is there anywhere else in the New Testament where I find that this same set of issues was a problem?

Is there anything in the post-New Testament era in the writings of the early church where we see this problem or this type of theology resurfacing? So Barclay has actually about four or five more criteria. But I found this really helpful. Yeah. And this may be, we don't need to put this in the video.

Right. This is like a little bonus stuff for the podcast listeners. But I found this so helpful to just be asking this question as I'm reading the letters. Is there a certain problem that keeps resurfacing? Yeah. Paul keeps addressing? What types of statements does he use to address it? And can I infer from that the actual language

or theology of the group that he has to do? So again, this is all about whether or not I can reconstruct what's happening situationally in these letters. Can I look behind my shoulder? Yeah. In the mirror reading. Yeah, that's right. And see what's actually there. That's right. You can see there's something in the mirror, right?

In the side view mirror of your car. We've got the letter. Do you just read through it? First blush and you're like, oh, yeah, there's some problems here. The Peter Paul is addressing. So if you want to do the safety look over your shoulder and be like, I want to figure out a little more here. What comes a question should I be asking?

That's where these criteria become helpful. And so this is guardrails. So that if you come up with this hypothesis of like, oh, I bet something's happening in the church and you can get even really specific, then you can go, well, is it historically plausible? Is there other people that have had this problem? Yeah.

Did Paul just kind of mention this one time and now I'm building whole theory around it? Or is it something he keeps coming back to over and over? Yeah. So consistency and frequency. Mm-hmm. Yeah, the tone of his language does he sound angry? And again, that's hard in translations, but where do they sound like there's urgency?

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, this is definitely, this is not intro-bible reading. I wouldn't introduce this to people like at level one. Yeah, but it's very intuitive too. It is. It is not like. That's right.

None of these are counterintuitive. Correct. In a way, this would be what you are doing if you're having an intense conversation with anybody. It's being a good listener. It's trying to be good listeners to the apostles so that we understand the situations that they're speaking into, which can then help us get a bigger frame of reference for understanding what the whole letter might give us.

These points could be like a book on marriage communication too. Hahaha. Don't know boys. Yeah. What kind of statement was that? Oh yeah. I don't often make these statements. Totally.

Oh yeah, my wife and I have this conversation all the time because sometimes one of us will make a statement that really is in assertion. No, I'm sorry. We'll make an assertion that really is an accusation. Yes, right. You know, boy, you slept in this morning. Yes, right. And what you might really mean is like, hey, you left me hanging

for the boys' breakfast and pack their lunches today. What's the deal? You're right. And that's a valid observation and accusation. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Let's look at Romans then and then tease it out. Okay. So Romans, I actually thought we could tease out all the levels of the three levels of context. Ah, all three levels. We've done so far. And we've kind of already done it for Romans in some previous episodes, but let's just

kind of give it a fresh start at it. you Paul's letter to the Romans. This is a network of house churches, people who live in Rome, in the capital city of the dominant world empire. Not because they are Roman citizens, they actually are in the living room. They live in Rome, and some of them are Roman citizens, they actually are in a big living room. They live in Rome, and some of them are Roman citizens. So we're gonna see. I think I've already mentioned this book in our conversation. It's being-

It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being-

It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- It's being- But if I look in the first paragraph, Paul gives a very clear portrait of where he sees himself in the grand biblical narrative. In fact, we've already read this paragraph

in a previous episode. He's an emissary who's out announcing the good news. A possible. Yep, he's an apostle. And that's what you mean by emissary. By emissary, yeah. He's set apart for the good news. Or in Romans 1-1.

1-1, opening sentence of Romans He's introducing himself as somebody sent appointed by Jesus as an emissary whose life is given to Announcing the good news. What's the good news assertion? Assertion it's the storyline of the Hebrew Scriptures about the God's Son Who is up from the line of David, and also who was raised from the dead and declared by that act to be not just the Son of David, but the Son of God. And he is Jesus Messiah, our Lord.

And through him we've received this gift of being his emissaries to summon all the nations to give their obedience to him through faithful allegiance for his name's sake. And you know what, you all are... I love how you're just translating on the fly. Well, I'm paraphrasing. You're paraphrasing? I mean, you're... You're...

You're kind of creating your own translation on the fly. Yeah. I love it. If you're listening to this, you could follow along with any translation and you can see what's happening. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And then you include all of it.

To all of you who are in Rome, and you are also called among God's holy people, Grayson peace to you. So there you go. We've talked about this at length earlier in the series. Yeah. But this is, it's time for all the nations to- First level of context. Yes. What is happening in the whole story of God in the world?

That's right. There is a cosmic king who is from the family of David, which is from the family of Abraham, but is also the Lord. Yeah, the Son of God, God's second self, become human. And he's now, yeah, exalted, up, sitting up the right hand. He's the divine human image from Genesis 1, who now rules over all creation. And this is spreading to the nations.

This news is spreading, which was the point. Yeah, so all along. Yeah, to summon all nations, verse 5, to believing obedience, to summon all nations, verse five, to believing obedience or believing loyal allegiance, to write this to a group of people living in the capital city of the empire, where the emperor lives, summoning all nations to give their loyal, trusting allegiance to him. Yeah. Okay, now we're going into the next level of context, which is the cultural context of the Roman Empire.

Right? Which you can't sess out through this letter. No, however, it's addressed to Rome. Yeah. What is Rome? Rome is the capital city of the Empire. So, all right, so they were making an interpretive reflection. Yeah.

Why would Paul see it as important to write a letter? Okay, Paul didn't start the church in Rome. We know this from the book of Acts. And actually, there's debate about who exactly planted and started it, but we know it wasn't Paul. So Paul is writing to a network of house churches as we're gonna see by the end of the letter. He knows a lot of people there,

but there's also a lot of people he doesn't know. He's introducing himself. So that's where he isn't in the biblical story, and he's writing to followers of Jesus in Rome. So the next moment of cultural context, what do we know about the status of followers of Jesus in Rome? We know quite a lot, actually. If you go to Acts chapter 18, after Paul left Athens, this is the first sentence of Acts chapter 18, he went to Corinth and he found a Jew, Medijue named Aquila, who is a native of Pontus, but had recently come from Italy with his wife Priska or Priscilla, because Claudius, the Roman Emperor, had commanded all of the Jews to leave Rome. Claudius expelled all of the Jews from the city of Rome.

That's a big deal. Yep, so what's that backstory all about? And this is actually crucial to the backstory of the letter to the Romans. In 49 AD, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome. Why did he do this? Well, there's a handful of Roman historians who mentioned this. This was in 49 AD. There's a historian named Sutonius who says this, he says Claudius expelled from Rome, the Jews who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of a Crestus, and then this is being quoted by another Roman historian named

Arosius and these are Messianic Jews. Correct. There's some problem happening with Jewish people in relation to a Christus, and it caused enough of a disturbance that Claudius Jews out of here. So the word Christus is spelled in Latin, but it's almost certainly Jesus' title, the Christ. Yeah. So think, and then the book of Acts, can I think of any time where Messianic Jews who follow Jesus are trying to spread the news about Jesus and there are other Jews who are scandalized by it and riots start and disturbances start? Oh, yeah, that's like.

It happens. It happens. Paul's missionary journeys. So just imagine this then, you have a community of uh, Messianic Jews living in Rome. There's disturbances about them related to social unrest. The Roman governors perceive it as social unrest. So let's get it rid of this problem. Yeah, expel. Kick them out. Kick them out. That's right. So remember all the first generation followers of Jesus are Messianic Jews. So let's say by 49 AD, we've got network of house churches in Rome, some are going to be Jews, some are not going to be Jews. Then one day...

Jews... yeah. All the people in your house church who are Jews... yeah, have to pack up and leave. Yeah, that's right. And as far as we can tell, they had to leave... Let's see, the Edict of Claudius, I'm quoting from Robert Jewett, his commentary on Romans, after the Edict of Claudius was no longer enforced after his death in 54, the band leaders apparently began moving back to Rome. So in other words, these Jewish Christians, Messianic Jews, started being able to go back five years later, but the house churches that they met when they returned were no longer a very friendly place for them. And here we move into the next layer of context,

the situational context. So that makes sense how we're moving through these layers here. So we know from Roman sources and the book of Acts, this backstory that this church got separated in tombs of Jew and Gentile, then when the Jews came back, something happened that made Paul need to write the letter to the Romans.

Now I feel like you're jumping ahead for me a little bit in that. So they come back and it could be that the house churches are like, great. It could be. I'm so stoked you guys are back. That's right. Let's pick up where we left.

But you're saying that's not what happened, and you get that from the letter to the Romans itself. The letter to the Romans itself. The state of the house churches that we see in Paul's letter to the Romans is that they are fractured along the ethnic divide of Jew and non Jew. How do you know this? This is why Scott McKnight wrote the book

Reading Romans Backwards. So let's just read Romans backwards, quick skim Romans backwards for the sake of time. If you go to chapter 16, it's one of these chapters that I think modern readers tend to skip up. Oh yeah, it's a bunch of greetings. It's a bunch of greetings. Greent Ampliatus, Greta Pellis, Greta Holorodians,

Greet Rufus, also his mother and mine, and so on. But if you really spend some time and if historians dig into what's going on here, what you're able to reconstruct is about half a dozen house churches that he names right here. He names five different house churches or groups. These names are all, they're mostly Greek, there are some Jewish and some Latin. So we got the ethnic, an ethnic mix here. Look at verse 17, it's Romans chapter 16, verse 17.

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, keep your eye on anyone who causes dissension and hindrances contrary to the teaching that you learned and turn away from those people. Such men are slaves, not of our Lord Lord Jesus Messiah but of their own appetites, and by smooth flattering words they're deceiving the hearts of unsuspecting people. In other words, why did he write the letter to the Romans? There's a group of people causing dissension, and division in the house churches that are ethnically diverse. Well, let's let's use Barclays, but maybe this is one statement. Yeah, that's right. That's right.

This could be that. He's like, oh yeah, by the way, don't cause divisions. Keep your eye on those who cause division and don't associate with them. Yeah, that's what he says. Okay. There's some group in Rome, because he says these people are, it's an actual group of people.

So the question is, okay, where else, if I read Rome is backwards, where else do I go to see Paul addressing what this division is in the church? Oh yes, it's the previous two chapters, chapters 14 and 15. So if we consider chapter 14, 15, Paul starts describing two groups in the house churches of Rome. He calls one group, he has two titles for these two groups, there's two groups. In Romans 15, he calls one group, he calls them the powerful in verse 1. The Greek were Duneitas, the Greek word, duneitas, the powerful. Are you with me? He says, now we who are the duneitas, the powerful, we ought to bear the weaknesses of those without power. Why does he say we? Because he includes himself among this group, the duneitas, the powerful.

So we who are powerful should bear the weaknesses of those who have no power. And we shouldn't just please ourselves going down, I'm skipping down to verse seven now, we should welcome one another just as the Messiah welcomed you all to the glory of God. What he's saying in this paragraph is the Messiah made pay of the way so that non-Jews could be incorporated in the family of Abraham. So right now he paints it as in terms of like rank and power. There's a group that has power and status. There's a group that's without power and without status. And the powerful should accept those without power. If you go to chapter 14, he has different terminology for these two groups.

He calls one the weak or the weak in faith. Actually, here I'll just read the opening line here of Romans 14. He says now, you should accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purposes of passing judgment on his opinions. Listen, one person has faith that he can eat all kinds of food. But the one who is weak will only eat vegetables. The one who eats... This is about Temple's accuracy.

...shouldn't regard with contempt the one who doesn't eat. The one who does eat should not pass judgment on the one who does eat. For God has accepted him. Who are you that you should judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls, and he will stand, for the Lord's able to make him stand, for his five, one person might regard one day as more important than another.

Another person regards every day the same. Every person should be convinced in his own mind. So there's some division between two groups of people about food and days. Sacred days. Totally. And you're like, oh, okay. We're in very recognizable territory here of the Jew, non-Jew, kosher food laws. Yeah, kosher food laws not about being veggie, terry in. Oh, yeah, oh, totally.

Really? Yeah, think of Daniel, chapter one. Oh, yeah. Yeah. But there's meat you can eat and kosher diet. Totally. But if you're in a room where they're just not non-kosher meat, then you're just not going to eat. I'm not going to eat any of this meat. So oftentimes your kosher diet practically makes you a vegetarian plant-based diet in the first century. Yep. Yep. So what we have to do is reconstruct here. I'm just going to quote Scott McKnight, who's this big part of his book.

He says, so if you profile the whole book, the week are Jewish believers, Messianic Jews, who see themselves in the stream of God's elect people. They know and practice the Torah, still probably attend synagogue, but they are sitting in judgment on Gentiles, especially the powerful of the Christian community in Rome, even though they, these Jews passing judgment, have no power or status. These painting the whole profile here. If you got Messianic Jews who were expelled by the emperor. Now, but Paul puts himself in the category of the powerful.

Yes, that's he does. That's he does, yes. It's Jewish believers who, and then you profile them. They see themselves, this is truly elect ones. They know and practice the Torah. They probably still attend the synagogue. And they're sitting in judgment on Gentiles. This is a good example of Barclay's criteria.

Why else does he have to say, let the one who is weak in faith, or the one who chooses not to eat non-coachier food, he should not pass judgment on those who will eat any kind of food. So that's a prohibition. Mm-hmm. Yeah, don't do this thing. not past judgment on those who will eat any kind of food. So that's a prohibition. Yeah, don't do this thing.

Which assume that there are people who are eating kosher and they're passing judgment on people who don't eat kosher. You can see that in the review mirror, then you have to look over your shoulder and begin to pay, look for historical plausibility. Oh, elsewhere in the New Testament is this a thing? Oh, yes. So then now I can start going to Galatians or the book of Acts.

And this is the Jew Gentile defined. Yeah. So if I paint that whole picture, Scott's giving the result now of all of his own study. He says, the powerful are predominantly Gentiles, but not only because Paul sees himself among the powerful, says they believe in Jesus as Messiah. They don't observe Torah as God's will for them. And they have condescending and despising attitudes towards Jews, especially Messianic Jews in Rome, because they have a higher superior social status. Because they're in Rome.

Yeah, they're in Rome. They're non-Jews, many of them are likely citizens, and they weren't just reasonably expelled. Yeah. If you just got expelled for being an assortment group, you're lesser. You are a severe disadvantage in terms of your social rank. Got it.

So the tension between these, back to Scott, is not just a matter of theological difference. That's how often this is painted, as these are the chapters about debatable matters. That's how I've taught this chapter before. But when he uses the phrase, the dunitas and the adunitas, the powerful and the non-the people without

power, those are social status terms. So essentially here's the way, you know, here's the, what do you get? The good is at the end of all of this work. Is that the letter to the Romans isn't an abstract theological essay on justification. It's a pastoral theology trying to unify a church across a divided ethnic line of Jew and Anju. What's got, does then is he goes through every section of letter and can show how it's connected to that. It's addressing specifically the that issue.

Now, he'll float above it and paint a larger theology of justification and Abraham and faith. Which we talked about, which we said once you look at the situational constructs. Yeah, that's right. You can kind of almost like at pokes a hole that you can then look through and see some grander theology. Yep. That's right. Yeah, man, he has an exposition of Romans 12 and 13, which are famously, this is in chapter 13 where he says, be subject to the governing powers.

All of this, pay your taxes. Why does he have to say that? We're barely 10 years away from the Jewish war against Rome in Jerusalem. Revolt is in the air. Would there be good reason? Or would there be motivation for Jews in Rome? Messianic Jews in Rome, who give their allegiance to King Jesus to say, like, just give the emperor the finger. I'm not going to give him my taxes. I've

got two cousins who are forming the militia down in Judea, and they're going to declare war on him. I'll give them some. Totally. So Paul in Rome's 13 is commending the way of non-violence. And listen, it's not like he's in love with Rome. Right, yeah, he's been beat up by Rome. But Paul has a different long game strategy for how to live under Roman occupation. And it doesn't involve resistance and violent revolt.

So he commends them to pay their taxes. So to me, a chapter like that, seeing it in the context really helps. Because then also it begins to help us see how we should and should not be quoting that passage in the service of certain agendas in our own day, I think. That's a whole other conversation. But to me, that's really where this cash is out. This whole approach of reading

the letters helps us is I want the ways that Roman speaks to the 21st century to be consistent with not just his words, but with what he was doing with his words in the cultural and situational context. And it requires a lot of thoughtfulness. It's a kind of thoughtfulness that isn't always at work in how people quote from the New Testament letters today. you I think my biggest aha out of this whole conversation is that these are not theological essays. And while there is theology undergirding them that you can get to, you get to it from an understanding of what these letters were addressing.

And then it takes a lot of discernment then to figure out, okay, now in my situational context. Yeah, that's now in my situational context. Yeah, that's right. And my social context. Yeah. We're arguably in the same part of the story of the name of the Bible. Yeah, that's right.

We talk about movement five or some movements six. Yeah, that's right. But they're pretty similar. We are in the same point in the story as the apostles. Yeah. Post-resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Yes, making disciples before the new creation.

Waiting for new creation. Yep. But we live in a radically different cultural setting. Yes. You and I do. Yes. Actually, everyone does. No one lives in the ancient Roman Empire in the world today.

But people live under, in empires, still. That's right. Dictatorships. Dictatorships. And oner-shame cultures. Yeah, so there's some similarities. Yeah. How do I take Paul's theology and then apply that to my context?

Well, it's first realizing that Paul isn't giving you histiology right out the back. You actually have to then go, well, what's the context that he was speaking into? And now through that lens, what can I understand of his theology? I actually also, through the lens of just, his theology came from Jesus in the way of Jesus, and then through the Hebrew scriptures. Yeah, yeah.

And then now, how do I apply that theology to my context? And that is not as simple as God said it, that settles it. Kind of reading of the New Testament. The letters. Yeah, and as we opened this particular series on the letters, I think the stakes are high in the section of the Bible. Because again, they're so quotable. It's easier to take them out of context, statements out of context,

than many other parts of the Bible. And so I think it really pays off to develop a thoughtful set of reading skills for how to make sense of these letters. I think one of the fears that people have is that if you don't just go, hey, the Bible says it, let's take it face value and then apply that thing. Then you get into murky waters and then whose interpretation is right. And then the whole thing falls apart.

Sure. Well, it's a little catastrophic, but you hear that. But it's true. No, that's exactly right. I've heard that verbatim. Yeah, okay. But that's an extreme. But there's a sense of the way that you're walking through, no, there's guardrails.

Layers of context. And then there's guardrails within how to make sure you're doing this in a way that has fidelity. Because the face value meaning of Paul's words, for example, to a 21st century American reading them in English, like, the assumption is what it means to me in English, yeah, living in Portland is of course it's natural basic meaning. And I think I'm trying to poke at that assumption and be like, why do I assume that the first thing that occurs to me reading Paul's letter in English

is what God means for all people of all time. Anything, I should give this way more thought. An invest in a set of responsible reading skills to understand what Paul was doing. So that I can understand what the spirit is saying through Paul's letter to churches and other contexts. I hope we do the same with Jesus himself. But communication is a lot of work.

It is. Understanding someone else's communication is a lot of work. It is. Understanding someone else's communication is a lot of work. And these letters were not written to us, but God gave them for us. For us. That's a line that I first heard from the Hebrew Bible scholar John Walton. And it actually takes them unpacking,

but as a one-liner, I think it gets a really important point across. It was not written to me. But they're provided for us. But through God's wisdom and the work of the Spirit, it is for me, just as a member of the body of Christ. And the skill set that we're developing of reading these carefully and doing detective work is very active participation that then needs to also be in step with God's spirit

and a community and a community. A community of other readers who are also thoughtful. Which might be the translation that you are using. That was a community of people. Yep. But also the people you're living life with. Every translation is a product of a community of people, reading and trying to understand these texts and your own church community. I'm speaking to you, John. Yeah, my church community.

And then y'all, the listeners, bring it, wrapping it around with, we begin this conversation in Texas. That is also a community of reading and interpretation, or at least it, you know, it can become one that can help, help give guidance to what the spirit is saying. And what a great skill to develop, not just for reading the New Testament letters, but for just living life in our context. It's a great point. Movement 6 of your city or your cultural setting,

what is the spirit up to? What's the right thing for you to be doing? There is no letter written to you, but the spirit is written to you, or it writes to you. It's speaking to us through these texts. Through these texts, but the skills that we develop by reading this way transfer over to how we continue to live.

This is missionary correspondence. New Testament letters are missionary correspondence. And yeah, I think the most responsible readings and responses to these letters will be new insights, new discoveries about our own cultural context and how we engage with them with the good news based on what we learned from this ancient missionary correspondence. Yeah, man, then testament letters. Cool context, context, context. We still are going to talk about one more level of context. Correct. And if I understand correctly, it's just the fact that the letters have a flow and a logic

to them that you can understand. And so that will be our final stop. Yeah. Call this literary context. Literary. We're learning to read each letter from beginning to end as a coherent flow thought. Cool. Yeah. It's a whole other exciting world of things to talk about. Thanks for listening to this episode of Bible Project Podcast. If you're interested in submitting

a question for our question response episode on the letters we'd love to hear from you, you can record yourself asking the question and email it to info at BibleProject.com. Try to keep your question to about 20 or 30 seconds and if you're able to transcribe it for us, Gold Star, A-plus, it really helps us a lot, sift through them. Also, we'd love to get your name, where you're from, in your audio. Again, our email is info at BibleProject.com. Our deadline for submissions for the letters conversation is Tuesday, August 4th. Also, you might have heard that we just launched some more free classes, top by Tim, and you can find all of those offerings at BibleProject.com slash classroom.

You can also get there by going to classroom.bible. That's easier to remember. There's an intro to Hebrew Bible class, which is amazing. There's a really short class on the Garden of Eden And there's another full class we just released on Heaven and Earth, biblical cosmology and Genesis 1. It is also Amazing if you can hang with these conversations, you can hang in classroom. We'll be back with another episode next week Continuing our discussion on the other voices in the room when Paul was writing his letters. Throughout history, readers of the New Testament letters have tended to take their experience

and practice of writing a letter that they've been taught in their culture and assume that's what the apostles were doing. When you think of Paul writing one of the letters, what at least modern Westerners tend to do is imagine Paul sitting by himself, maybe in a study, or a room where he has like privacy, and he's producing a single unedited draft that he's got to get out the door. Or, Paul, he's pacing the room, talking, there's a scribe, you know,

secretary, getting it all down, but still single draft, and then out the door goes. So that's the mental image. Paul did not have a study. He was a traveling missionary to imagine a scenario where the most likely place where you would have room to work in would never be a private place. It would be in guest rooms, in pins, and rest stops where you would have space for Paul and Barnabas and Timothy to get together and be like, dude, I need to send a letter to Klausay. Here are the issues. These are things I've taught them in the past. Here's what I want to say. And that these letters could have been in the making over the course of weeks and months in multiple steps. Today's show was produced by Dan Gummel. Our show notes come from Camden McAfee.

We're a crowd-funded nonprofit in Portland, Oregon, and we make free resources because of the generous support of so many people around the world just like you. Thank you for being a part of this with us. Hi, this is Renee. I'm from Virginia. I first heard about the Bible project through Dan Gummel, who is married to my wonderful cousin, Breon. My favorite thing about the Bible project

is the book that he got my son MJ. So it's called the Read Scripture Book, and if you haven't heard about it, check it out on the website. Your kids will love it. We believe the Bible is a unified story that leads to Jesus. We're a crowd-funded project by people like me.

Find free videos, study notes, podcasts, and more at thebibeproject.com. Woohoo! Woo! Woo! Woo!