Skip to main content

Réflexion sur Romains 1:5a

La déclaration « Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur », retrouver en Romains 1:5a, est important, non-seulement parce que c’est la conclusion nécessaire du parallélisme des versets 3-4, mais aussi dû au contexte culturelle de l’église à laquelle Paul est en train d’écrire. S’il y a un lieu sur la terre où l’adoration de l’empereur était particulièrement présente c’était à Rome. Comme nous avons noté ci-haut, le peuple donné le titre « Seigneur » à César pour lui attribué non-seulement leur allégeance, mais aussi pour l’adorer comme Dieu. Le mot « Seigneur », quoi qu’il peut signifier seulement un maître terrestre, pour les Romains signifiaient non-seulement la puissance politique du César, mais sa divinité aussi. Oscar Cullman, « Lorsque, d'une part l'empereur a été appelé Kyrios comme un signe de sa puissance politique, et d'autre part a été vénéré comme divine, le titre Kyrios doit automatiquement prendre une signification religieuse—surtout quand ce nom était une désignation commune pour des dieux païens. »[1] Quand les Chrétiens du premier siècle disait que Jésus était leur Seigneur c’était compris, autant par la société qui les entourer que par eux-mêmes, comme l’acte de donné tout leur allégeance et adoration à Jésus, et non à César. Dans cette sens le fait que Paul affirme, dans un lettre écrit à l’église à Rome, « Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur » a encore plus de signifiance. Comme s’il est en train de dire, vous êtes entourées par l’adoration de l’empereur, vous êtes dans sa ville, mais malgré la démonstration de la puissance de l’empereur, il n’est pas notre Seigneur. La puissance de Jésus était démontrer par sa résurrection, et alors, lui seul est Seigneur (autant pour les Juifs – comme héritier légitime de la trône éternelle de David, mais aussi pour tous les peuples de la terre – comme fils de Dieu).



[1]Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, Revised edition, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie et Charles A. M. Hall (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1963), 198. Traduction le mien. En Anglais, “When on the one hand the emperor was called Kyrios as a sign of his political power, and on the other hand was revered as divine, the title Kyrios must automatically take on a religious significance—especially where this name was a common designation for heathen gods.”

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.


Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

LEISURE: THE BASIS OF CULTURE – A BOOK REVIEW

Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…

IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE by Martin Heidegger

I don’t propose to attempt any sort of reply to Martin Heidegger in this article. The purpose of this article is to explain Martin Heidegger’s thoughts, as they are found in the book, Identity and Difference. Martin Heidegger is a difficult thinker to understand, and requires a lot of work to fully appreciate his arguments. My primary goal in this article is to introduce the reader to two very important articles written by Heidegger, and, I hope, to properly explain Heidegger’s views on Being and beings.
            This book is composed of two articles written by Martin Heidegger and translated with an introduction by Joan Stambaugh. The first article, The Principle of Identity, is “the unchanged text of a lecture given on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the University of Freiburg im Breisgau, for the faculty day on June 27, 1957.”[1] The second article The Onto-theo-logical Constitution of Metaphysics, is “the explication that concluded a seminar during the wint…