Has it really only been 3 days since I began Romans and then put it all aside? I really am going to try to limit my comments.
Romans, written by Paul from Corinth about 58. Note he claims in v.1 to have been called as an apostle, putting himself equal with the Jerusalem Apostles. Is Paul the replacement for Judas? Such that Jesus remarks in Matthew, I think, about the 12 apostles governing the 12 tribes of Israel would come true? In v.2 he says Jesus was “declared the Son of God because of the resurrection of the dead.”
1:16 he says salvation thru the gospel is for the Jew first, but also the Greek. One assumes he is glossing all gentiles as Greek, since he is speaking to Romans.
1:18-32 is a tirade against all men who know (by virtue of being created) the nature of God but refuse to worship him, and therefore fall into all kinds of sin including degrading passions. “ . . . for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.” What does that mean? Anal sex? Vaginal sex for pleasure? Or sex with other women? For the next verse is, “and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” 1:27 To what could he be referring? He is speaking of the past, not the future, so forget AIDS. Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah? Note that in 2 of the 4 letters I’ve read, Paul brings up sexual sin in the first chapter.
He does list other sins, and in chapter 2 tells them to stop judging one another. Every one who accuses another is guilty himself. His main point seems to be in 2;11-15, where he says the law applies equally to Jews and Gentiles (the new Law). God is impartial.
Gentiles who do the right thing are “The Law unto themselves,” as they have the Law written on their hearts, whether they’ve heard the Law or Gospel or not 2:14. This is important for me – it is saying that all those attempts to baptize Indians, etc., were unnecessary. Jews, on the other hand, know the law and have no excuse. Just being a Jew isn’t enough. If you break the law, your “circumcision becomes uncircumcision” 2:25. Circumcision is inward, in the heart. It is a beautiful passage, and in chapter 3 he points out there are still benefits to being a Jew – one entrusted with the oracles of God. But, of course, Jews are not better than anyone else.
3:21-31 is important. Let’s see if I can decipher it. He’s been talking about the Law, and seems to say that no one was saved by it, “for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” 3:20, and he’s just argued that, while non-Jews may know God in their hearts, they didn’t know the Law – and thus couldn’t sin? But now he says righteousness has manifested apart from the Law (in the person of Jesus) 3:21, and tho the words don’t actually say it, he means that all now can have righteousness by faith in Jesus. Bleh. I don’t feel like parsing out every word. He’s making the argument, (for the first time?) that Jesus marks the forgiveness by God of all past sins.
I am fortunate enough to have a brilliant young niece in seminary. In 2006, she was just graduated from college, and was passing through my city for a couple of nights. So I took the opportunity to ask a few questions.
August 23
I’m hoping to be able to talk to V about Bible stuff tonight. I’ll explain to her where I’m coming from, tell her I’m still trying to find a Christianity I can believe in, but that I’m finding it difficult, and tell her why. Aside from the smaller questions and quibbles, I have trouble with the very foundation – that of Original Sin. I just can’t really believe that we need saving in the way Christianity has formulated it. Yes, anyone can see that humans are separate from God, that we feel a kind of disconnection and incompleteness. So I can buy Jesus as Savior in the same way Buddha or Muhammad is Savior – People who have pointed us to how we can be closer to God, become more complete. But the notion that it is our fault, that the separation is our punishment for being sinful – that I just can’t wrap my head around. Not while maintaining the notion of God as good and all powerful.
So another question for her is: what is the purpose of the creation? Because I know a lot of modern American Christians don’t believe in the devil, don’t believe in a literal reading of the Garden of Eden. But if you don’t believe that, then why was Jesus’ suffering necessary? Why did any price have to be paid?
August 24
Now I’ll tell you about our theological discussion. We began by my asking her general approach to the gospels and she said she believed the writers were honest, reliable, and . . . well-intentioned wasn’t the word she used, but something like that. She doesn’t believe every word was dictated or even protected by God, and sees that each was speaking from a particular cultural, political, etc., stance. However, she gives them more weight than I currently do; she believes they are true.
I asked about some particular questions, and we had a thoughtful, enjoyable discussion. At the end, I felt that I had received more of the kind of answers that I realize serve others perfectly well but that I find personally frustrating, such as that something is a mystery, or that we don't really understand an aspect completely, so it isn't possible for us to know why Jesus or God did something.
Jesus’ death she sees as the perfect sacrifice, and important for what it says of God’s love for us. For her it isn’t so much about paying a debt – more a simple and powerful declaration of love. That is beautiful, but doesn’t make a lot of rational sense. Yes, I realize rationality doesn’t really matter, but it would be less confusing.
I guess really I’m in the same place I was before. If you don’t accept a lot of the church doctrine, the sense they have made of all this, then where are you? It encourages me that V finds all the doctrine irrelevant and is still a Christian, but for me I don’t think it will work. If the meanings the Church has attached are incorrect, then what are the correct meanings?
My interpretation of what V said was that she believes Jesus said he was God. If he said it, she believes it. And if he was/is God, then all one really needs to know is that God loves us so much that he was willing to become human to love us better, and he died for it. And that’s it. That is all one needs to know.
I’ll try to keep that in mind and see if it changes how I view things. But questions pop up already, like then where does the forgiveness of sin figure into things? Not to mention the fact that Yahweh does not always seem particularly loving. I guess for now I’m just going to leave it at that. Let it sit. It feels very unsatisfactory, but I guess that’s where I need to be right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment