Talk:Rom 12:1-15:13

Verse 12:20: Heaping coals

Preliminary discussion

Eric,

I found the explanation you provided interesting. I have been thinking about it. I'm curious if you find the explanations very convincing. Here's where I am getting stuck. a) the idea that in this context saying someone was going to heap coals of fire on someone else's head would be understood at the time to mean that something good was going to the person who just got heaps of coals on their head. Even with the Isaiah reference (which I thought was the strongest argument in favor of this) this interpretation seems like a stretch. b) the wider context supports a reading that this dumping of coals was a punishment. Look at 19 and 20 together.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Right before Paul tells us to be kind to your enemies "for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" he says "avenge not yourself ... vengeance is mine; I will repay." Notice the "therefore" that connects the two sentences in a causal fashion. It seems like in this context the Lord is suggesting that heaping coals on someone's head is the vengeance the Lord will exact on that person if rather than trying to exact the vengeance ourselves, we are good to our enemies.

I still need to think through this. I certainly don't have some alternate interpretation that resolves all the issue. --Matthew Faulconer 10:14, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)

If there were an obvious answer, there wouldn't be so many theories. :) I think it's possible that heaping coals of fire on someone's head might be an idiom that would have been understood by Paul's original audience, so until we find some sort of a Greek idiomatic dictionary from the first century we'll never know. In any case, I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. If we're talking about someone feeling shame, that certainly can seem like punishment. And then we need to ask about the times God does exact vengeance, what is its purpose? To me, though, it seems pretty clear that our attitude toward others should be a positive, loving one. The whole chapter (and it's one of my favorite sections of scripture, even if I'm not certain what this verse means) is directed toward having a Christlike love toward other people. --Eric 20:11, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Great comments. Thanks Eric.--Matthew Faulconer 03:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, I find the explanations convincing. There is widespread agreement among scholars that the verse in Proverbs probably refers to the Egyptian repentance ritual. If the verse was still understood that way in Paul's time, then it makes sense that he uses it in this context. I think you are depending too much on the KJV translation. The "therefore" is a bad translation; it doesn't have the sense of a logical connector in Greek. It just means "but." So I see Paul as saying don't avenge yourselves, BUT leave that to the Lord since the scriptures say that vengeance is his, BUT if your enemy is hungry feed him since that will bring him to repentance. The two "but" clauses refer back to the first part of verse 19. Jim F

Apocryphal context

I downloaded the following article which, upon skimming it, is very interesting on this topic: "Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love 1 QS x, 17-20 and Rom. 12:19-21," Krister Stendahl, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Oct., 1962), pp. 343-355. In particular, I thought the apocryphal citations were very interesting, esp. Test. Ben 4-5 and Test. Gad 6-7 which discuss the idea of forgiving enemies, and 2 Macc 6:12ff which discusses the idea of judgment being a sign of God's love b/c it affords the opportunity to repent (cf. Heb 12:5ff). There is also an interesting discussion of the Targum in this article (please email me if you're interested in a copy)--the Targum adds the line " . . . on his head and God will hand him over to you" or "will make him your friend." The WBC, in the Romans and Proverbs commentary, favors the notion that "heaping coals" has a positive connotation (and seems ambivalent about whether this is referring to an Egyptian rite/tradition). --RobertC 17:27, 18 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Misc

I was thinking about this verse again the other day. I wonder if in some sense the message here and the message in D&C 98:45 is that whether you want someone punished for their own sins or you want to help them reform and become better, the actions that make sense for you to take (if you have the proper perspective that God is in charge) are actually the same: you treat them with love. Your only other option, being mean (seeking vengeance on your own), just makes you responsible for some of their problems. --Matthew Faulconer 17:28, 27 June 2007 (CEST)

Verses 13:1-5: Government to promote Good--what about tyrannical governments

I looked in a couple of protestant commentaries that were online on these verses. The feeling there was that sometimes God will appoint an evil ruler as a punishment to the people. I don't really see this in the text itself. It makes sense but it also seems like there might be times when it is the evil ruler himself that causes the people to sin--the evil ruler is the cause rather than the result. I think Mosiah says about this much in explaining why they should not appoint a king in his son Aaron's stead.

On the related question of whether we should be subject to a government if it asks us to do something wrong (pretty rare I think even in Paul's day) they referred to Acts 4:19. That seems relevant. Clearly the answer there is no. Also verse 4 is seems to imply the same.

--Matthew Faulconer 14:27, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I came across the semi-parallel passage in the Articles of Faith this morning, which I assume was inspired by these verses. It seems that our church puts more emphasis on this concept than do most other churches today. E.g., we don't proselytize where it's not legally permitted, and some recent comments by President Hinckley indicate that we may not be held personally responsible if we obey our government in fighting an unjust war. This passage raises some questions for me, although I expect they will remain theoretical rather than practical in nature. --Eric 14:48, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)