The section of the letter to the Romans we know as chapter 3 is somewhat difficult to interpret. I will state again that I am not writing a verse-by-verse commentary but rather an exploration of the themes that run throughout this letter which is also a book-length essay.
The main thrust of this passage is verse 9: "What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin." (NRSV) Paul is preparing to expound further on the theme of equality before God and that all need his forgiveness and redemption. First, though, in verses 1 through 8, he makes an argument that is baffling to us. I am asking your leave to try out a hypothesis: that Paul is walking through the arguments and accusations that the Christians in the Roman church had been throwing at each other and that had been reported to him.
This is just a hypothesis and should not be taken as any sort of definitive interpretation. Based on what Paul says in 1 through 8, I imagine that the Gentile or Greek Christians had questioned the advantage that the Jews claimed they had in knowing about or accessing the favor of God and the value of circumcision. Many Jews had been unfaithful to God through history so consequently that nullifies their advantage. No, replied the Jews, the sinfulness of our forefathers served to confirm that God is just. Well, then why should anyone be condemned as a sinner if God's glory is shown by it? replied the Gentiles.
If this is the topic of argument, then what Paul says in verses 1 to 8 makes eminent sense. The Jews have the advantage of receiving the "oracles" of God (his message) first, before anyone else. Although some were unfaithful, God is always faithful. This should obviate the entire argument between Jewish and Greek Christians. No one has any excuse for their rebellion against or unfaithfulness to God.
Then Paul states in verse 9 that although the Greek Christians cannot claim to be better Christians than the Jewish ones, neither are the Jewish believers better off. Then he quotes from two psalms (14 and 53) and Ecclesiastes 7:20 to the effect that no one is righteous (right with God, saved by their good works or ethical behavior, etc.). We are all rebellious.
Then Paul argues that the purpose of the law (Torah) was to silence the mouths of those living under it and to hold the entire world accountable to God. Through the Torah we can know what is sinful and learn that we ourselves are sinful (rebellious against God). The NRSV translates "... no human being will be justified in" the sight of God "by deeds prescribed in the law." However, Paul actually wrote "no flesh will be justified." The word "flesh" (sarx) is used by Paul in various of his letters always to mean human nature, that is, rebellious and proud, self-satisfied behavior.
In verse 21 Paul says that "apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets." (NRSV) This saying is clear just on the surface. It helps, however, to note that the Hebrew scriptures are called by the three sections of text: torah, navi'im ve ctuvim (Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible, prophets, and writings--Daniel, Esther, Ruth, Chronicles, etc.). Jesus drew his message from all three sections of the Hebrew bible. Paul says that both the first five books and the prophets, which sometimes are read as standing in tension with each other, attest to the fact that all of us are made right with God (only) through faith in Jesus Christ. God makes no distinction of persons on any basis. It is in the context of all this discussion that Paul says the quote often heard in church: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." The next verse is part of the same sentence and thought unit: (but they are) justified (brought into right relationship with God) freely, as a gift, of God's grace (willingness to forgive if we will accept it) through the work of Jesus Christ. Paul interprets Jesus' work as being a redemption (making free by buying back). Then for those who still see God as needing to be appeased (not a position I take, but common enough now and back then) Paul says that Jesus, through his obedience that led to being executed on a cross provided whatever sacrifice of atonement may be needed, forgiving past sins and, through faithfulness to him, making people right with God.
In the last paragraph of the chapter (remember that the original text was written without paragraphs, chapters, verses, or even division between words) Paul concludes that, as a result of what he has presented, it becomes clear that no one has any grounds to boast (that they are better off with God as compared to anyone else by virtue of ethnicity or obeying laws). We are made right with God through faith apart from any works of the law; moreover circumcision is immaterial. God is the God of all peoples both Jews and all Gentiles (the rest of the world) and the only way to become right with God is faith in Jesus. The section ends with Paul echoing the teaching of Jesus: the Torah is not being overthrown, rather its true purpose is being revealed and brought to fruition.
One last matter. The Greek word for faith (pistis) also encloses the concept of faithfulness. Faith is not an assent to propositions. It is trusting Jesus to be, now and forever, who he said he was, which is recorded in the Gospels. This trust should lead to faithfulness in living. Easy to understand, hard to do.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Romans 2
After establishing the main themes of his book-length essay, in chapter 2 Paul begins to dig into the implications of how God deals with people. Of course God will dispense judgment, but it falls on everyone equally. God has no favorites and so we are all in the same boat. The good news is that, throughout the Bible, both in the Hebrew scriptures and in the New Testament, the purpose of God is redemption.
The opening of this section can well be translated: So you have no excuse, all you people who judge; by judging others you condemn yourselves because you practice what you condemn. The exclamation often rendered "... o man" is o ánthrope. Anthropos is the word for human being, not a male person. That word is aner. One clear implication is that we men are not any better off nor less culpable because we are male. Paul repeats the word in verse 3. How seldom we stop to think about it in this light!
Verse 4 sums up what Paul is getting at: "Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (NRSV). Repentance is a key New Testament word. Both John the Baptist and Jesus opened their preaching by saying "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." Accordingly, it is important to understand clearly what repentance means. Our cultural concept (being sorry for what one has done) is inadequate. In Hebrew, the word for repentance (shuv) means to realize that you are on the wrong road and to turn aside or back to join the right road, the one that leads to God. It calls for changing your lifestyle. The Greek word (metanoia) implies to change your way of thinking, your intentions, your goals and aspirations. Taken together, this means that to repent, in the Biblical sense, is to change your way of life and your world view. This is huge. It's what Jesus meant when he said that if we want to be his disciples, we are to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow him. I take it to mean, obey Jesus, wherever he leads and whatever it costs. I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, our usual religiousness just doesn't cut it.
Paul means that we all, in our disbelief, hardness of heart, and assurance of our own rightness of purpose, condemn ourselves. He says several times that the principle applies to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (literally "the Greek"). God shows favor first to the Jew and then to the Greek and condemns disobedience, first that of the Jew and then that of the Greek. In dealing with time-bound humanity, God started dealing with us at a certain point in time with a specific individual (Abraham). So the Jew is first in chronological order because God, in entering into our world, had to start somewhere. But since God has been dealing with the Jew for so much longer in human terms, the Jew has more responsibility and is more liable for disobeying God. The Gentile, if doing what is right because of what nature (God's creation) reveals and follows, then God honors that. However, the fact is that we are all disobedient and rebellious (sinners) and all equally in need of redemption.
Paul's discussion here is important to what he expounds in the following sections. We are all in need of Jesus, because "God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all (v. 16, NRSV). In the remainder of what we know as chapter 2, Paul reworks the preceding theme. The Jewish law and circumcision are really secondary. The last two verses read: "A person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart -- it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God." There is a lot there. These verses should be read and reread carefully and their implication completely thought through.
I don't claim to deal with every verse, because this is not a detailed Bible commentary. I hope to highlight the main teaching of Paul and to explore the themes he sets out, interpreting them by what Jesus did and thought. Next up: Chapter 3 of Romans.
The opening of this section can well be translated: So you have no excuse, all you people who judge; by judging others you condemn yourselves because you practice what you condemn. The exclamation often rendered "... o man" is o ánthrope. Anthropos is the word for human being, not a male person. That word is aner. One clear implication is that we men are not any better off nor less culpable because we are male. Paul repeats the word in verse 3. How seldom we stop to think about it in this light!
Verse 4 sums up what Paul is getting at: "Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (NRSV). Repentance is a key New Testament word. Both John the Baptist and Jesus opened their preaching by saying "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." Accordingly, it is important to understand clearly what repentance means. Our cultural concept (being sorry for what one has done) is inadequate. In Hebrew, the word for repentance (shuv) means to realize that you are on the wrong road and to turn aside or back to join the right road, the one that leads to God. It calls for changing your lifestyle. The Greek word (metanoia) implies to change your way of thinking, your intentions, your goals and aspirations. Taken together, this means that to repent, in the Biblical sense, is to change your way of life and your world view. This is huge. It's what Jesus meant when he said that if we want to be his disciples, we are to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow him. I take it to mean, obey Jesus, wherever he leads and whatever it costs. I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, our usual religiousness just doesn't cut it.
Paul means that we all, in our disbelief, hardness of heart, and assurance of our own rightness of purpose, condemn ourselves. He says several times that the principle applies to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (literally "the Greek"). God shows favor first to the Jew and then to the Greek and condemns disobedience, first that of the Jew and then that of the Greek. In dealing with time-bound humanity, God started dealing with us at a certain point in time with a specific individual (Abraham). So the Jew is first in chronological order because God, in entering into our world, had to start somewhere. But since God has been dealing with the Jew for so much longer in human terms, the Jew has more responsibility and is more liable for disobeying God. The Gentile, if doing what is right because of what nature (God's creation) reveals and follows, then God honors that. However, the fact is that we are all disobedient and rebellious (sinners) and all equally in need of redemption.
Paul's discussion here is important to what he expounds in the following sections. We are all in need of Jesus, because "God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all (v. 16, NRSV). In the remainder of what we know as chapter 2, Paul reworks the preceding theme. The Jewish law and circumcision are really secondary. The last two verses read: "A person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart -- it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God." There is a lot there. These verses should be read and reread carefully and their implication completely thought through.
I don't claim to deal with every verse, because this is not a detailed Bible commentary. I hope to highlight the main teaching of Paul and to explore the themes he sets out, interpreting them by what Jesus did and thought. Next up: Chapter 3 of Romans.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Romans 1, part 2
Good interpretation always takes context into account. The church in Rome consisted of Gentile (that is, non-Jewish) believers in Christ and recently returned Jewish believers. The emperor had expelled all Jews from Rome some years earlier, and then the empire allowed them to return. The church, which for a good while was much more culturally homogeneous now was dealing again with thorny cultural differences among the members.
Some of the Jewish believers held that people had to become Jews first (the men circumcised as part of this conversion) before they could become Christian. So Paul writes a letter which is also a book-length essay to the church to argue that all human beings have the same status before God.
In verses 18 to the end of the chapter Paul seems to allude to the entire history of humans, from the time of creation. In the first chapters of Genesis, God creates Adam (Humankind) and Eve (Chava, which sounds almost like Chaia, that is Life). God sets them in the Garden of Eden (Delight) and gives them both freedom and the full run of the world except for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (that is, deciding for themselves what is right and wrong instead of trusting God to make that determination). The humans listen to the temptation spoken by a talking snake and disobey God.
From the beginning humans have gone their own way and preferred their own counsel to that of God, who, because he gave them freedom, instead of destroying everyone (Genesis 6 through 11), set out to redeem us from the evil consequences of our disobedience. Paul says that everyone is without excuse, because God can be known from the natural world. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain just how that works, but he point he is making is that this estrangement from God applies to everyone. We think we are wise, but in so doing we become fools (verse 22). People make their own gods out of wood or stone, and nowdays in some photographs and some movies, in the images of humans or animals, who are all mortal. preferring them to the one God who lives forever.
In the rest of the chapter, Paul makes a list of awful behaviors that have resulted from worshiping the creature(s) rather than the creator. Most commentators make a great deal of verses 24-27, which deal with sexual behavior, and gloss over the remainder (28-32). This is picking an choosing rather than reading in context.
When Paul condemns undisciplined sexual practices, he is summarizing (very briefly) what many ancient Greek and Roman ethicists and social critics had already said before him. This was nothing new to any of the listeners of this book in the church. Most would readily agree, though I can imagine the Jewish Christians at this point would feel quite satisfied with Paul's criticizing how the people of the ancient Mediterranean world lived, which was different from Jewish practice. However, were not the people of ancient Israel criticized often by the prophets for worshiping idols?
The discussion of sexual practices is preceded by mention of idolatry and followed by condemnation of "evil, covetousness, malice...envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (New Revised Standard Version). Why do we not condemn envy and gossiping on the same level as sexual misconduct? The text certainly intends to condemn all of these practices equally. No human can claim to be blameless. This truth is fundamental to the rest of the book/letter.
As for sexual practices, Jesus set a bar higher than human wisdom can fathom. See Matthew 19: 1-12.
At this point we would do well to remember that it is God's prerogative, not ours, to judge and condemn. I would submit that Paul gives us this list for self examination. By the same token, it is clear throughout the entire Bible that God's purpose from the beginning is redemption. Oh, yes, and the teaching is that God is love.
Some of the Jewish believers held that people had to become Jews first (the men circumcised as part of this conversion) before they could become Christian. So Paul writes a letter which is also a book-length essay to the church to argue that all human beings have the same status before God.
In verses 18 to the end of the chapter Paul seems to allude to the entire history of humans, from the time of creation. In the first chapters of Genesis, God creates Adam (Humankind) and Eve (Chava, which sounds almost like Chaia, that is Life). God sets them in the Garden of Eden (Delight) and gives them both freedom and the full run of the world except for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (that is, deciding for themselves what is right and wrong instead of trusting God to make that determination). The humans listen to the temptation spoken by a talking snake and disobey God.
From the beginning humans have gone their own way and preferred their own counsel to that of God, who, because he gave them freedom, instead of destroying everyone (Genesis 6 through 11), set out to redeem us from the evil consequences of our disobedience. Paul says that everyone is without excuse, because God can be known from the natural world. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain just how that works, but he point he is making is that this estrangement from God applies to everyone. We think we are wise, but in so doing we become fools (verse 22). People make their own gods out of wood or stone, and nowdays in some photographs and some movies, in the images of humans or animals, who are all mortal. preferring them to the one God who lives forever.
In the rest of the chapter, Paul makes a list of awful behaviors that have resulted from worshiping the creature(s) rather than the creator. Most commentators make a great deal of verses 24-27, which deal with sexual behavior, and gloss over the remainder (28-32). This is picking an choosing rather than reading in context.
When Paul condemns undisciplined sexual practices, he is summarizing (very briefly) what many ancient Greek and Roman ethicists and social critics had already said before him. This was nothing new to any of the listeners of this book in the church. Most would readily agree, though I can imagine the Jewish Christians at this point would feel quite satisfied with Paul's criticizing how the people of the ancient Mediterranean world lived, which was different from Jewish practice. However, were not the people of ancient Israel criticized often by the prophets for worshiping idols?
The discussion of sexual practices is preceded by mention of idolatry and followed by condemnation of "evil, covetousness, malice...envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (New Revised Standard Version). Why do we not condemn envy and gossiping on the same level as sexual misconduct? The text certainly intends to condemn all of these practices equally. No human can claim to be blameless. This truth is fundamental to the rest of the book/letter.
As for sexual practices, Jesus set a bar higher than human wisdom can fathom. See Matthew 19: 1-12.
At this point we would do well to remember that it is God's prerogative, not ours, to judge and condemn. I would submit that Paul gives us this list for self examination. By the same token, it is clear throughout the entire Bible that God's purpose from the beginning is redemption. Oh, yes, and the teaching is that God is love.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Romans Chapter 1
First a word about chapter and verse divisions. When the books of the Bible were written, there were no chapter or verse divisions. As a matter of fact, there were no paragraph divisions and, as writing materials were very expensive, in order to save space and money there was no division between words, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Where words divide is usually obvious. I know of only two or three places in all the Bible where there is a question as to where the words divide and the choice is not significant to the overall sense of the passage where it is found.
When in the Hebrew Scriptures, there are books numbered 1 and 2, such as First Samuel and Second Samuel, it was because the complete text did not fit onto one scroll and had to be continued onto a second scroll. Books were in scroll format in ancient times until, around the first century of our era, when someone got the idea of cutting the columns apart and then tying the resulting pages together. Thus the codex was born. It is the format we consider a book.
The Biblical texts were divided into chapters and verses in the Middle Ages to make finding passages easier. The idea was so practical, that it survived to our days. It is important to keep in mind that they are merely references introduced later for convenience. The texts should never be read as if each verse has a separate life and meaning. Rather texts should be read as a whole and interpreted accordingly.
Finally, we should always keep in mind that even in the first century, when the New Testament was written, few people owned books. They were just too expensive and rare until printing was invented, nearly fifteen hundred years later. Most people never had the text of Romans in their hands to read alone. Rather, as a letter to a specific group of people, it was read out loud in meetings. No wonder, then that Paul repeats himself and deals with his handful of topics from numerous angles. He paints enough different word pictures to make sense to just about every hearer and hopefully "get through" to all.
In chapter one of Romans, after the greeting and beginning in verse 8, Paul expresses his desire to visit Rome. He has heard of their faith and in his prayers always thanks God for that and intercedes for them. He makes clear that his intention of visiting them is firm, so that he can strengthen them in some way as well as doing the same among all nations (ethnic groups-there were no nations as we think of them back then). Then he makes an intriguing statement: he owes both Greek-speaking people and speakers of other languages (barbaroi), wise and not wise. Strictly speaking for myself, I interpret that, as a minimum, Paul is saying that God has commissioned him to tell the gospel of Jesus to all nations, inasmuch as it is possible for Paul to do so. He is saying he still has a lot of work to do to make that happen. There certainly may be further meanings to this saying which escape me.
In verses 16 and 17 Paul mentions the pairing of Jews and Greeks for the first time. He says that he is proud to proclaim the gospel (the high points of the life of Jesus, especially his death on the cross and return to life on the third day), calling it the power of God for salvation of the Jews first and then of the Greeks. Salvation means the redeeming power and intent of God to forgive our sins and bring us into fellowship with him and to obedience because we trust Jesus to be always who he said he was. Faith should be read as absolute trust because we know the character of God through Jesus. That is why Paul says that God's ethical goodness and power (that is, righteousness) is revealed from first to last and at all times through faith: God's faithfulness to us calling us to be faithful. Therefore, Paul concludes (and this is his theme): the righteous persons are those who trust. Those who trust will find life.
In my next post I will say a word as to why "to the Jews first and then to the Greeks" and I plan to deal with the remainder of Chapter 1.
When in the Hebrew Scriptures, there are books numbered 1 and 2, such as First Samuel and Second Samuel, it was because the complete text did not fit onto one scroll and had to be continued onto a second scroll. Books were in scroll format in ancient times until, around the first century of our era, when someone got the idea of cutting the columns apart and then tying the resulting pages together. Thus the codex was born. It is the format we consider a book.
The Biblical texts were divided into chapters and verses in the Middle Ages to make finding passages easier. The idea was so practical, that it survived to our days. It is important to keep in mind that they are merely references introduced later for convenience. The texts should never be read as if each verse has a separate life and meaning. Rather texts should be read as a whole and interpreted accordingly.
Finally, we should always keep in mind that even in the first century, when the New Testament was written, few people owned books. They were just too expensive and rare until printing was invented, nearly fifteen hundred years later. Most people never had the text of Romans in their hands to read alone. Rather, as a letter to a specific group of people, it was read out loud in meetings. No wonder, then that Paul repeats himself and deals with his handful of topics from numerous angles. He paints enough different word pictures to make sense to just about every hearer and hopefully "get through" to all.
In chapter one of Romans, after the greeting and beginning in verse 8, Paul expresses his desire to visit Rome. He has heard of their faith and in his prayers always thanks God for that and intercedes for them. He makes clear that his intention of visiting them is firm, so that he can strengthen them in some way as well as doing the same among all nations (ethnic groups-there were no nations as we think of them back then). Then he makes an intriguing statement: he owes both Greek-speaking people and speakers of other languages (barbaroi), wise and not wise. Strictly speaking for myself, I interpret that, as a minimum, Paul is saying that God has commissioned him to tell the gospel of Jesus to all nations, inasmuch as it is possible for Paul to do so. He is saying he still has a lot of work to do to make that happen. There certainly may be further meanings to this saying which escape me.
In verses 16 and 17 Paul mentions the pairing of Jews and Greeks for the first time. He says that he is proud to proclaim the gospel (the high points of the life of Jesus, especially his death on the cross and return to life on the third day), calling it the power of God for salvation of the Jews first and then of the Greeks. Salvation means the redeeming power and intent of God to forgive our sins and bring us into fellowship with him and to obedience because we trust Jesus to be always who he said he was. Faith should be read as absolute trust because we know the character of God through Jesus. That is why Paul says that God's ethical goodness and power (that is, righteousness) is revealed from first to last and at all times through faith: God's faithfulness to us calling us to be faithful. Therefore, Paul concludes (and this is his theme): the righteous persons are those who trust. Those who trust will find life.
In my next post I will say a word as to why "to the Jews first and then to the Greeks" and I plan to deal with the remainder of Chapter 1.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Introduction to Romans
Every week for a month or two I will be writing a post on the New Testament book of Romans. After that I will continue with other books from the Scriptures.
Introduction to Romans
The book titled To the Romans (Prous Romaious in Greek) is a letter and a book-length essay.
Romans is clearly a letter because it begins with the elements of classical Greek and Roman letters though, as we shall see, greatly expanded. A typical letter two thousand years ago would begin as follows:
Romulus Quintus (the writer)
to Augustus Tertius (the recipient)
Xairen (grace: the normal greeting in Greek, the language of the eastern Roman Empire)
Romans begins "Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ," followed by a sentence of praise to God the Father and the Son who gave him, Paul, the job of apostle, that is, one sent to the peoples of the world to proclaim the good news of the story of Jesus. The opening ends with grace, as customary, but not just grace in general or grace as a formula, but the grace of God. Grace becomes the theme of the letter, as Paul insists that we are put right with God, not by our beliefs, nor by our rites or ethics, but by God's grace which anyone may receive through faith, meaning to trust Jesus to be always who he said he was when he was on earth, and therefore follow him in obedience because we love him.
Romans also ends with a leave-taking that is normal for ancient letters. It includes greetings from people the recipients would know and a benediction. Letters usually are relatively short (see the letters of John or Paul's letter to Philemon. Romans is the first letter in the New Testament because they are mostly arranged from the longest to the shortest by author.
Romans is, for all practical purposes, a book-length work, specifically a book-length essay because it essentially deals with one or two ideas: (1) no one is righteous enough to make God owe him or her God's favor and (2) it is trusting God that makes us right with him, which is the definition of faith. The person who lives by faith of this kind will find life.
The French produce many book-length essays. Jacques Derrida's On Grammatology, a largely misunderstood book in America academia, is a good example. He spends the first half of his work urging the reader to give up ontological logocentrism (big words that mean simply considering books as scriptures coming from an unquestionable authority, and he was not talking about Bible, but rather about people's attitude towards literature in general). Once he had made the point in as different ways and with as many examples as possible, he proceeded to investigate which book by Rousseau, Emile or another one, was written first, because the order of writing determined what the author meant to say. This examination makes up the remainder of the book. American literary academics, not being used to book-length essays, misunderstood what Derrida had to say and gave us deconstructionism. To go further into this matter exceeds the scope of this blog. Suffice it to say that you can look up deconstructionism if you really want to and that we can be glad the movement has run its course.
One more example: Marshall McLuhan was also given to writing book-length essays. He was an Anglo-Canadian, but Canada has more tolerance of the French way of thinking than does the US. In The Mechanical Bride his one point is that all advertising is totalitarian and destructive of traditional cultures. And he was basing his observations on print advertising before television became big. In The Gutenberg Galaxy his one major point is that print made people of the modern period think linearly and come up with outlines, programs, and technology. He remarked that Romans thought of themselves as ancient Greeks, Medieval people thought of themselves as ancient Romans, Modern people thought of themselves as Medieval, and the we post-moderns think of ourselves as Modern. Finally, in Understanding Media he defines radio as a hot (high definition) medium and television as a a cold (low definition) medium and he says that the medium is the message. This saying means simply that the effect the medium (whether print, radio, or television) has on the user is greater than any content that it conveys. If we read book-length essays as such, we don't expect every single paragraph to say something different and we do not become frustrated with the text.
Armed with the understanding of what a book-length essay is, we can now go back to Romans. Paul has one major idea to make in his book-length letter: Jews and non-Jews are on the same footing before God, who approves of those who live by trust in Jesus. Neither belonging to an ethnicity nor holding certain tenets nor obeying a list of rules deriving from the Torah will suffice. He makes these points repeatedly, coming at them from various angles and using many different stories, arguments, and quotes from scripture.
Next week I will deal with the first chapter of the essay we call Romans.
Introduction to Romans
The book titled To the Romans (Prous Romaious in Greek) is a letter and a book-length essay.
Romans is clearly a letter because it begins with the elements of classical Greek and Roman letters though, as we shall see, greatly expanded. A typical letter two thousand years ago would begin as follows:
Romulus Quintus (the writer)
to Augustus Tertius (the recipient)
Xairen (grace: the normal greeting in Greek, the language of the eastern Roman Empire)
Romans begins "Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ," followed by a sentence of praise to God the Father and the Son who gave him, Paul, the job of apostle, that is, one sent to the peoples of the world to proclaim the good news of the story of Jesus. The opening ends with grace, as customary, but not just grace in general or grace as a formula, but the grace of God. Grace becomes the theme of the letter, as Paul insists that we are put right with God, not by our beliefs, nor by our rites or ethics, but by God's grace which anyone may receive through faith, meaning to trust Jesus to be always who he said he was when he was on earth, and therefore follow him in obedience because we love him.
Romans also ends with a leave-taking that is normal for ancient letters. It includes greetings from people the recipients would know and a benediction. Letters usually are relatively short (see the letters of John or Paul's letter to Philemon. Romans is the first letter in the New Testament because they are mostly arranged from the longest to the shortest by author.
Romans is, for all practical purposes, a book-length work, specifically a book-length essay because it essentially deals with one or two ideas: (1) no one is righteous enough to make God owe him or her God's favor and (2) it is trusting God that makes us right with him, which is the definition of faith. The person who lives by faith of this kind will find life.
The French produce many book-length essays. Jacques Derrida's On Grammatology, a largely misunderstood book in America academia, is a good example. He spends the first half of his work urging the reader to give up ontological logocentrism (big words that mean simply considering books as scriptures coming from an unquestionable authority, and he was not talking about Bible, but rather about people's attitude towards literature in general). Once he had made the point in as different ways and with as many examples as possible, he proceeded to investigate which book by Rousseau, Emile or another one, was written first, because the order of writing determined what the author meant to say. This examination makes up the remainder of the book. American literary academics, not being used to book-length essays, misunderstood what Derrida had to say and gave us deconstructionism. To go further into this matter exceeds the scope of this blog. Suffice it to say that you can look up deconstructionism if you really want to and that we can be glad the movement has run its course.
One more example: Marshall McLuhan was also given to writing book-length essays. He was an Anglo-Canadian, but Canada has more tolerance of the French way of thinking than does the US. In The Mechanical Bride his one point is that all advertising is totalitarian and destructive of traditional cultures. And he was basing his observations on print advertising before television became big. In The Gutenberg Galaxy his one major point is that print made people of the modern period think linearly and come up with outlines, programs, and technology. He remarked that Romans thought of themselves as ancient Greeks, Medieval people thought of themselves as ancient Romans, Modern people thought of themselves as Medieval, and the we post-moderns think of ourselves as Modern. Finally, in Understanding Media he defines radio as a hot (high definition) medium and television as a a cold (low definition) medium and he says that the medium is the message. This saying means simply that the effect the medium (whether print, radio, or television) has on the user is greater than any content that it conveys. If we read book-length essays as such, we don't expect every single paragraph to say something different and we do not become frustrated with the text.
Armed with the understanding of what a book-length essay is, we can now go back to Romans. Paul has one major idea to make in his book-length letter: Jews and non-Jews are on the same footing before God, who approves of those who live by trust in Jesus. Neither belonging to an ethnicity nor holding certain tenets nor obeying a list of rules deriving from the Torah will suffice. He makes these points repeatedly, coming at them from various angles and using many different stories, arguments, and quotes from scripture.
Next week I will deal with the first chapter of the essay we call Romans.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
A Dose of Sense for Dark Times
I was stunned and saddened by the vicious and unjustifiable attacks on Paris last Friday. We were just there on holiday this past summer and loved every minute of it. We also visited Carcassonne in the south of the country. You could not ask for more kindly, attentive, and helpful people. Paris was attacked precisely because it is the cultural capital of the world. We will go back as soon as we can.
I have been disgusted by what most of our politicians had to say concerning immigration policy, security, and Islam in reaction to these horrendous events. Also by the ignorance and hatred evident in so many Facebook posts. I would like to talk some sense about these matters, but it requires a brief excursion into history. Please bear with me for an instant.
Islam, the religion, and viciously ideological islamism are not the same thing, no more than the crusaders and Christianity are the same. The practice of Islam is based on what it calls the five pillars: 1) the confession that Allah is God (that is, that God is One and there is no other) and that Mohamed is his prophet, 2) five daily prayers, 3) alms for the poor, 4) the feast of Ramadan, and 5) the pilgrimage to Mecca. Practicing these precepts makes people good Muslims. When Europe was sunk in the darkest of the Dark Ages, the areas ruled by Islam (Persia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, North Africa and Spain) experienced a brilliant flowering of culture including literature, medicine, science, and philosophy. They kept alive the knowledge of ancient Greek culture and practiced considerable tolerance toward the Jews and Christians that lived among them.
Ideological islamism is relatively recent, having arisen in the Wahhabi areas of Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century. They added two, strictly unofficial, tenets to the five pillars: 1) the West is still on a crusade to destroy Islam and 2) no Westerner is without culpability. Now official Islam rejects these tenets and they are scurrilously false. However, they drive the actions of the men (and a few women) who buy into them, making them feel falsely justified in killing any Westerner at any time. I see you catch my drift: the perpetrators of 9/11, of the Charlie Hebdo, of the downing of the Russian airliner, of the attack in Beirut last week, of the attacks on Paris on Friday and many other actions are wrongly convinced that they are doing right by God. I beg to differ with them.
Now, what can we do? I think I have some common-sense suggestions. The Islamic State, which is dominated by this ideology I described and has perpetrated the most recent horrors, claims to be a state or nation and has taken territory. We should call their bluff. When we attacked Iraq in 2003, we did it on false premises: there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with the attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. Our uninformed and hubristic administration destroyed everything that made Iraq, so it fell apart and then extremist islamists made their way in where there were none before. Now we understandably do not wish to commit any more troops there and probably will not because it would be politically untenable, but it is what we have to do: Send in hundreds of thousands of soldiers, destroy the Islamic State and try the perpetrators of lèse humanité as war criminals under the Geneva Conventions. We can get many countries to swell our ranks to do just that.
It will not be enough however. Afterwards, there should be a global convocation called in order to have the West listen to and learn from the countries most affected by this scourge, such as Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and so on. The purpose would be to learn from them how we can help. We must confess we have been ignorant of Islam and of the multiplicity of cultures of the countries which are majority Muslim. We must pledge to help them (in non-military ways) as they wish to be helped and follow up on our pledges religiously, if that term has not been too much tainted by events so that I may still use it without sounding sarcastic. Then there may be some hope of their controlling the extremists in their countries (the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and so on) without curtailing the liberties of the majority of their citizens.
Oh, yes. And we must convince Israel to get serious about helping establish a viable Palestinian state with solid borders and mutual respect and commerce. It is the only hope Israel has to remaining a Jewish state in the long run and it may well do wonders to settle the anger among many in Muslim countries.
Please check out my books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com
I have been disgusted by what most of our politicians had to say concerning immigration policy, security, and Islam in reaction to these horrendous events. Also by the ignorance and hatred evident in so many Facebook posts. I would like to talk some sense about these matters, but it requires a brief excursion into history. Please bear with me for an instant.
Islam, the religion, and viciously ideological islamism are not the same thing, no more than the crusaders and Christianity are the same. The practice of Islam is based on what it calls the five pillars: 1) the confession that Allah is God (that is, that God is One and there is no other) and that Mohamed is his prophet, 2) five daily prayers, 3) alms for the poor, 4) the feast of Ramadan, and 5) the pilgrimage to Mecca. Practicing these precepts makes people good Muslims. When Europe was sunk in the darkest of the Dark Ages, the areas ruled by Islam (Persia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, North Africa and Spain) experienced a brilliant flowering of culture including literature, medicine, science, and philosophy. They kept alive the knowledge of ancient Greek culture and practiced considerable tolerance toward the Jews and Christians that lived among them.
Ideological islamism is relatively recent, having arisen in the Wahhabi areas of Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century. They added two, strictly unofficial, tenets to the five pillars: 1) the West is still on a crusade to destroy Islam and 2) no Westerner is without culpability. Now official Islam rejects these tenets and they are scurrilously false. However, they drive the actions of the men (and a few women) who buy into them, making them feel falsely justified in killing any Westerner at any time. I see you catch my drift: the perpetrators of 9/11, of the Charlie Hebdo, of the downing of the Russian airliner, of the attack in Beirut last week, of the attacks on Paris on Friday and many other actions are wrongly convinced that they are doing right by God. I beg to differ with them.
Now, what can we do? I think I have some common-sense suggestions. The Islamic State, which is dominated by this ideology I described and has perpetrated the most recent horrors, claims to be a state or nation and has taken territory. We should call their bluff. When we attacked Iraq in 2003, we did it on false premises: there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with the attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. Our uninformed and hubristic administration destroyed everything that made Iraq, so it fell apart and then extremist islamists made their way in where there were none before. Now we understandably do not wish to commit any more troops there and probably will not because it would be politically untenable, but it is what we have to do: Send in hundreds of thousands of soldiers, destroy the Islamic State and try the perpetrators of lèse humanité as war criminals under the Geneva Conventions. We can get many countries to swell our ranks to do just that.
It will not be enough however. Afterwards, there should be a global convocation called in order to have the West listen to and learn from the countries most affected by this scourge, such as Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and so on. The purpose would be to learn from them how we can help. We must confess we have been ignorant of Islam and of the multiplicity of cultures of the countries which are majority Muslim. We must pledge to help them (in non-military ways) as they wish to be helped and follow up on our pledges religiously, if that term has not been too much tainted by events so that I may still use it without sounding sarcastic. Then there may be some hope of their controlling the extremists in their countries (the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and so on) without curtailing the liberties of the majority of their citizens.
Oh, yes. And we must convince Israel to get serious about helping establish a viable Palestinian state with solid borders and mutual respect and commerce. It is the only hope Israel has to remaining a Jewish state in the long run and it may well do wonders to settle the anger among many in Muslim countries.
Please check out my books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Global Warming and the Energy Companies: a New Approach
The evidence on global warming is there for all to see, so I will not bother you with arguments of any kind. The solution is not in ideological-political debate. We must listen under the noise to resolve it.
Imagine that you own an oil-mining company or that you have a major investment in one, or that you are employed by one in West Virginia. What would the talk of ending the use of coal to power electrical generation say to you? It means closing down the company, losing your investment, or losing your job in a place where you have little prospects for another. Of course you want to resist. Your livelihood is in danger. I am amazed that the politicians who favor conversion to clean power do not understand this.
I would like to propose an alternative approach. Say we see the wisdom of stopping all use of fossil fuels. We need the support of everyone. So, the government could tell the oil and coal companies that in a specified number of years, all subsidies for oil, gas, and coal production will end and that in a few more years after that, all energy production must be clean. However, subsidies will continue for any company that wishes to convert from fossil fuel production to clean energy production, with preference for solar and hydrogen cell technology. Beyond that, the government would guarantee the continued life of the company and full employment for a specified number of years and give out well-thought-out generous grants as needed. It would be a combination of incentives, deadlines, and guarantees, carefully set out so they will be doable, and with built-in flexibility so the government can continue to help if the progress towards clean energy and the prospects of success merit it.
In other words, see where people feel threatened and honor that. Give those people priority in retooling their business toward clean energy. Give monetary and regulatory support for however much time is needed, so long as significant progress is being made. Remove the threat, remove the opposition. Make it a win for everyone. Is anybody out there listening? That's all I'm saying.
Check out my Angela books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com
Imagine that you own an oil-mining company or that you have a major investment in one, or that you are employed by one in West Virginia. What would the talk of ending the use of coal to power electrical generation say to you? It means closing down the company, losing your investment, or losing your job in a place where you have little prospects for another. Of course you want to resist. Your livelihood is in danger. I am amazed that the politicians who favor conversion to clean power do not understand this.
I would like to propose an alternative approach. Say we see the wisdom of stopping all use of fossil fuels. We need the support of everyone. So, the government could tell the oil and coal companies that in a specified number of years, all subsidies for oil, gas, and coal production will end and that in a few more years after that, all energy production must be clean. However, subsidies will continue for any company that wishes to convert from fossil fuel production to clean energy production, with preference for solar and hydrogen cell technology. Beyond that, the government would guarantee the continued life of the company and full employment for a specified number of years and give out well-thought-out generous grants as needed. It would be a combination of incentives, deadlines, and guarantees, carefully set out so they will be doable, and with built-in flexibility so the government can continue to help if the progress towards clean energy and the prospects of success merit it.
In other words, see where people feel threatened and honor that. Give those people priority in retooling their business toward clean energy. Give monetary and regulatory support for however much time is needed, so long as significant progress is being made. Remove the threat, remove the opposition. Make it a win for everyone. Is anybody out there listening? That's all I'm saying.
Check out my Angela books at www.progressiverisingphoenix.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)