In the last reflection, I have harmonized the apparent contradiction between Romans 2:13 and 3:20, namely that man is justified by keeping the law vs. keeping the law does not justify a man before God. Today, I attempt to look at Paul's view on justification.
The concept of justification is tightly coupled with the concept of sin. Traditionally, we understand sins as some wrongs deliberately done against God's command. According to Paul's definition of sin in the Romans, it is the coming short of God's glory (Romans 2:23). Which means God has a certain expectation on us. Our performance falls short of His expectation. Understanding sin in this way, is it possible to "cleanse" a sinner of his sins, so to speak? If it were possible, justification would mean being freed from sins, being cleansed. I doubt such is the case. Sin is not some dirt on your clothes or body or soul. Otherwise, going to confession would be likened to entering a washing machine dirtily and emerging from the confessional a new piece of clothes. According to Paul, sin is a sort of vandalism, a damaging of God's glory. If such is the case, justification needs to be a kind of repair work. To be justified suggests repairing damages, mending fences, reconciliation and achieving a certain standard etc.
So, what does Paul mean when he says a man is justified before God? Simply put, Paul means God does not find fault with the man in question. God and sinners are reconciled, to quote the lyrics of a famous Christmas carol. This is possible in two ways. One possibility is that the man has not sinned at all, which is impossible because Paul has shown that all men have sinned, fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). The first possibility is an impossibility. So, we are left with the second possibility: that God does not impute sin to the man. However, damage done is damage done. It cannot be undone. If a man is murdered, there is no way to bring the dead back to life again. If a window is smashed, it is nearly impossible to piece all the debris back together. As a Chinese idiom says, "Poured out water is difficult to retrieve.覆水難收" So, how can God not impute?
Since damage cannot be undone, to be fair, compensation has to be paid until the plaintiff is satisfied. Unluckily, we are living in a causal universe. The immediate consequence of an action will ripple, causing further long term consequences which no measure can satisfactorily contain. Therefore, when we commit a sin, it is hopelessly impossible for us to compensate the damages till God is satisfied because we are finite creatures. Therefore, no man can find justification through work, in terms of money or labour or prayers or deeds of the Law or what not (Romans 3:20). So, how can man be justified? According to Paul, man is justified through God's grace, not because of the merits of the sinner or any good things the sinner has done (Romans 3:24). Grace is something a sinner receives undeserved. Christ's passion and resurrection has earned for us this grace. In order to receive this grace, a sinner only needs to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus has died for him. Jesus' blood on the cross has saved him (Romans 3:25). This is how faith enters into the equation of justification.
Paul quotes Abraham's story to illustrate the relation between faith and justification. Unlike Christians, Abraham did not have Jesus to believe in. Abraham believed directly in Yahweh. Though he was nearly 100 years old, he believed that Yahweh was faithful. Yahweh would fulfill the promise He made to him. Abraham was a legendary warrior. In his seventies, he led an "army" of 300 servants to save his nephew Lot. Paul showed his admiration towards this patriarch. Yet Abraham could have nothing to glorify about before God (Romans 4:2). Paul further argues that the reward paid for the work done is a "debt" a master owes the worker for the service the worker renders (Romans 4:4). However, no amount of work is capable of satisfying the damage done by a sin. Therefore, God does not owe us any debt. When God does not impute sin to a man, it is the generosity, the grace of God. Paul further quotes two penitential psalms of David to show the grace of God.
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Romans 4:7-8).
"Blessed" means the person is full of grace. Quoting these two psalms, Paul links together grace and the forgiveness of sins. We are forgiven by the grace of God, not by the work we have done. The passion and resurrection of Christ is the fountain of this grace. Through faith, we draw from this salvation fountain the water of grace which flows into everlasting life. From the cases of Abraham and David, Paul concludes that justification (forgiveness of sins) comes from faith in Jesus, not from the works of keeping the Law. Yet, bear in mind that Paul upholds the Law.
Dear Lord, the Holy Week is at hand. May we partake your Passion and rise again with You this Easter. Amen.
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Friday, 30 March 2012
Among hearing, doing and believing
Paul is entering the main thesis of his theology: justification by faith. The first time he touches on the question of justification in the letter to the Romans is in chapter 2 where he says,
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13).
But when he reaches chapter 3, Paul says the opposite,
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).
Furthermore, Paul brings in the element of faith in the question of justification and draws the following conclusion.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28).
Lest the readers might think that faith alone is enough, that there is no need to perform the deeds of the Law, making the Law useless, Paul states his stance clearly that he supports the law.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Romans 3:31).
But he did not give any reasons, such as not keeping the law would bring chaos and instability in the society, or that the law enshrines moral values etc. Perhaps it was unnecessary to explain because at the back of his mind as well as his readers' mind, it had been taken for granted that not keeping the Law would bring down the wrath of God!
Any how, this position agrees with the teaching in Matthew, namely that Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Now, how do we harmonize these two seemingly contradictory positions towards the Law, namely that the doers of the law shall be justified and that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law?
First of all, let us take a look at a crucial word in the Greek original.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.
Counted justified by faith a man (without, besides) the deeds of the law. (Literal translation of Romans 3:28).
Click on the link to check the meaning, it is found that we can choose between without and besides for the Greek word χωρὶς. How different the theology would be! Had translators throughout the ages chosen "besides", there would not have been any contradiction. Besides keeping the law, man should do so with faith. Both doing and believing are needed for justification.
Don't blame Martin Luther for choosing "without" in order to uphold his theology of sola fide. The Vulgate (Latin translation) also chooses the word "sine" which means "without" in Latin. With so much authority behind, it is difficult to side with a "besides" translation. Then, what more can we say? Perhaps we should turn our look at the "doers of the Law".
In Romans 2, Paul was contrasting the Jews with the Gentiles. The Jews had heard the Torah. They were chastened by God for not keeping it. The Gentiles had not heard the Torah. Yet, they followed their conscience and had done what God approved. They received their glory. Paul argues that doing the law, not just hearing the law, justifies a man. Between hearing the Torah and doing the Torah, of course justification comes from doing. This teaching agrees with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7. Jesus uses the parable of building a house on a rock vs building a house on sand to show the importance of doing the teachings of the gospel (Matthew 7:24-27).
So far in the Romans, faith has not yet entered the picture. Jesus had not appeared on the scene to shed his blood for our propitiation. There was nothing for people to put their faith in (Romans 3:24-25). Now, Paul takes the next step. He contrasts doing with believing and work with faith. Between them, Paul argues that faith (in Jesus), not the performing deeds of the Torah, justifies. I think Paul said this in the context of polemic against Judaism. In short,
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13).
But when he reaches chapter 3, Paul says the opposite,
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).
Furthermore, Paul brings in the element of faith in the question of justification and draws the following conclusion.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28).
Lest the readers might think that faith alone is enough, that there is no need to perform the deeds of the Law, making the Law useless, Paul states his stance clearly that he supports the law.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Romans 3:31).
But he did not give any reasons, such as not keeping the law would bring chaos and instability in the society, or that the law enshrines moral values etc. Perhaps it was unnecessary to explain because at the back of his mind as well as his readers' mind, it had been taken for granted that not keeping the Law would bring down the wrath of God!
Any how, this position agrees with the teaching in Matthew, namely that Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Now, how do we harmonize these two seemingly contradictory positions towards the Law, namely that the doers of the law shall be justified and that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law?
First of all, let us take a look at a crucial word in the Greek original.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.
Counted justified by faith a man (without, besides) the deeds of the law. (Literal translation of Romans 3:28).
Click on the link to check the meaning, it is found that we can choose between without and besides for the Greek word χωρὶς. How different the theology would be! Had translators throughout the ages chosen "besides", there would not have been any contradiction. Besides keeping the law, man should do so with faith. Both doing and believing are needed for justification.
Don't blame Martin Luther for choosing "without" in order to uphold his theology of sola fide. The Vulgate (Latin translation) also chooses the word "sine" which means "without" in Latin. With so much authority behind, it is difficult to side with a "besides" translation. Then, what more can we say? Perhaps we should turn our look at the "doers of the Law".
In Romans 2, Paul was contrasting the Jews with the Gentiles. The Jews had heard the Torah. They were chastened by God for not keeping it. The Gentiles had not heard the Torah. Yet, they followed their conscience and had done what God approved. They received their glory. Paul argues that doing the law, not just hearing the law, justifies a man. Between hearing the Torah and doing the Torah, of course justification comes from doing. This teaching agrees with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7. Jesus uses the parable of building a house on a rock vs building a house on sand to show the importance of doing the teachings of the gospel (Matthew 7:24-27).
So far in the Romans, faith has not yet entered the picture. Jesus had not appeared on the scene to shed his blood for our propitiation. There was nothing for people to put their faith in (Romans 3:24-25). Now, Paul takes the next step. He contrasts doing with believing and work with faith. Between them, Paul argues that faith (in Jesus), not the performing deeds of the Torah, justifies. I think Paul said this in the context of polemic against Judaism. In short,
- Between hearing the Torah and doing the deeds of the Torah, doing justifies.
- Between doing the deeds of Torah and faith in Jesus, faith justifies.
- Though faith justifies, the Law is still indispensable.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Why can't the deeds of the law justify?
In the last reflection, we focused on the second half of Romans 3:20: by the law is the knowledge of sin. But we cannot ignore the first half of the verse in which Paul claims that the deeds of the law cannot justify a man. This raises a philosophical question.
Didn't God give the Torah to make the Israelites a kingdom of priests and a holy nation?
Is the Torah not an effective tool? God forbid. It must be an effective tool. Otherwise, God is to blame for our failures.
Or is the Torah too idealistic so that nobody is able to attain the moral heights it specifies? Nay. If it were an impossible mission, again God would be blamed for our failures.
So, the problem must lie with us.
Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). We would have been like God and shared His eternal life had our first parents not fallen into temptation. Sin entered the scene, polluted God's creation. Man had lost the original innocence and grace. We call this state: the Original Sin. Our strength (physical and spiritual) is weakened by concupiscence. So, we are incapable of fulfilling the standard set out in the Torah. If we were able to fulfill completely the standards set out in the Torah, we would be justified before God. Or so we think.
With no intention to offend the Jewish readers, the Torah, from the Christian perspective, turns out to be inadequate. Then, was God guilty of not giving an effective tool to the Israelites? Not at all. When God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments, they had just barely left behind 400 years of idolatry life in Egypt. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect them to perform according to a "first class" moral system. God had to give them more manageable "elementary" moral systems. Therefore, the Torah is really not adequate in justifying the Israelites before God. When Christians turn their attention to the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5-7, they will read how Jesus made more demanding requirements on the moral integrity of Christians.
Ye have heard that ..., but I say unto you ... (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44 etc.)
While the Torah forbids external actions (murder, adultery, divorce, swearing and revenge etc), Christ demands internal discipline (anger, lust, violation of one flesh, telling the truth and not to resist evil etc). People who attain purity in their hearts shall be able to see God (Matthew 5:8). That is why the taming of our heart should be assigned the first priority in our daily transactions.
Beyond the naive understanding of putting the Torah in the pigeonhole of "elementary" ethical system, the late Pope John Paul II explained a deeper understanding of the problem of the Law in his "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body". The focus is on the spousal meaning of masculinity and femininity.
When God created man, He created male and female, not simply male only or female only (Genesis 1:26). And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:30). In the second Creation story, God made a helper for the man out of the man. The man exclaimed that she was the bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2:23). From this the author of Genesis 2 concluded that a man shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:24). From this, the late Pope John Paul II developed the spousal meaning of the body. The body is a gift freely handed over to one's spouse and forms a communion of two persons, the communion of two hearts. However, when sin enters the world, our body is contaminated by concupiscence. Instead of longing for a communion of persons, sexuality becomes an object of possession, of gratification and a dominion over the spouse. All sorts of perversions, such as fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality and divorce etc. arise and the Torah is given to contain these evils instead of restoring the original innocence and communion. That is why Jesus drew our attention away from the letters of the Law and brought our focus onto the heart. Our conscience is in constant struggle against our concupiscence. No written law is able to tame a heart which has run wild. That was why Confucius opposed inscribing the laws on bronze tripods, why Ezekiel prophesied that God would exchange our stony hearts for a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), why Paul asserted that the deeds of the Law could not justify sinners before God, why Christ had to be crucified on the cross and had his heart pierced.
Paul continues to explain that God has decreed that justification is obtained through faith in the blood of Jesus (Romans 3:25) and not by the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28). It is faith that makes circumcision effective. Without circumcision, a man is still justified through faith in Jesus (Romans 3:30). Then, does it mean keeping the Torah is useless? Paul dared not to abolish the Torah. After all, the Torah was handed down from God. Though its effectiveness in transforming the heart is questionable, it is better than none. Therefore, Paul still upholds the Torah (Romans 3:31).
Dear Lord, from Your bleeding heart may we obtain the spring that runs to eternal life. Amen.
Didn't God give the Torah to make the Israelites a kingdom of priests and a holy nation?
Is the Torah not an effective tool? God forbid. It must be an effective tool. Otherwise, God is to blame for our failures.
Or is the Torah too idealistic so that nobody is able to attain the moral heights it specifies? Nay. If it were an impossible mission, again God would be blamed for our failures.
So, the problem must lie with us.
Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). We would have been like God and shared His eternal life had our first parents not fallen into temptation. Sin entered the scene, polluted God's creation. Man had lost the original innocence and grace. We call this state: the Original Sin. Our strength (physical and spiritual) is weakened by concupiscence. So, we are incapable of fulfilling the standard set out in the Torah. If we were able to fulfill completely the standards set out in the Torah, we would be justified before God. Or so we think.
With no intention to offend the Jewish readers, the Torah, from the Christian perspective, turns out to be inadequate. Then, was God guilty of not giving an effective tool to the Israelites? Not at all. When God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments, they had just barely left behind 400 years of idolatry life in Egypt. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect them to perform according to a "first class" moral system. God had to give them more manageable "elementary" moral systems. Therefore, the Torah is really not adequate in justifying the Israelites before God. When Christians turn their attention to the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 5-7, they will read how Jesus made more demanding requirements on the moral integrity of Christians.
Ye have heard that ..., but I say unto you ... (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44 etc.)
While the Torah forbids external actions (murder, adultery, divorce, swearing and revenge etc), Christ demands internal discipline (anger, lust, violation of one flesh, telling the truth and not to resist evil etc). People who attain purity in their hearts shall be able to see God (Matthew 5:8). That is why the taming of our heart should be assigned the first priority in our daily transactions.
Beyond the naive understanding of putting the Torah in the pigeonhole of "elementary" ethical system, the late Pope John Paul II explained a deeper understanding of the problem of the Law in his "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body". The focus is on the spousal meaning of masculinity and femininity.
When God created man, He created male and female, not simply male only or female only (Genesis 1:26). And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:30). In the second Creation story, God made a helper for the man out of the man. The man exclaimed that she was the bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2:23). From this the author of Genesis 2 concluded that a man shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:24). From this, the late Pope John Paul II developed the spousal meaning of the body. The body is a gift freely handed over to one's spouse and forms a communion of two persons, the communion of two hearts. However, when sin enters the world, our body is contaminated by concupiscence. Instead of longing for a communion of persons, sexuality becomes an object of possession, of gratification and a dominion over the spouse. All sorts of perversions, such as fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality and divorce etc. arise and the Torah is given to contain these evils instead of restoring the original innocence and communion. That is why Jesus drew our attention away from the letters of the Law and brought our focus onto the heart. Our conscience is in constant struggle against our concupiscence. No written law is able to tame a heart which has run wild. That was why Confucius opposed inscribing the laws on bronze tripods, why Ezekiel prophesied that God would exchange our stony hearts for a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), why Paul asserted that the deeds of the Law could not justify sinners before God, why Christ had to be crucified on the cross and had his heart pierced.
Paul continues to explain that God has decreed that justification is obtained through faith in the blood of Jesus (Romans 3:25) and not by the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28). It is faith that makes circumcision effective. Without circumcision, a man is still justified through faith in Jesus (Romans 3:30). Then, does it mean keeping the Torah is useless? Paul dared not to abolish the Torah. After all, the Torah was handed down from God. Though its effectiveness in transforming the heart is questionable, it is better than none. Therefore, Paul still upholds the Torah (Romans 3:31).
Dear Lord, from Your bleeding heart may we obtain the spring that runs to eternal life. Amen.
By the Law is the knowledge of Sin
Paul held a particular view on the law, as far as Romans 3 is concerned. He was addressing the Jewish Christians in the Church of Rome. Therefore, he meant the Torah, rather than laws in general. Let's rebuild the context.
Paul was criticizing the Jews who were entrusted God's revelation and God's Law. They should have been the instructors of the blind and the ignorant. Yet they themselves did the same evil as those Gentiles. So, Paul asked some rhetorical questions: what are the advantages of circumcision, of keeping the law and of being a Jew etc? Jews were the first to receive glory as well as the first to receive punishment (Romans 2:9-10). God gave them circumcision as a sign of covenant. Yet, their lack of faith rendered the covenant ineffective. The Jews had failed to make good use of the advantages. In the end, both Jews and Gentiles were under the control of sins (Romans 3:9). To support this conclusion, Paul pieced together passages from the Wisdom Literature (Psalms and Ecclesiastes) to show that nobody could be righteous before God (Romans 3:10b-18, See Appendix below).
Now, what are the purposes of the law and in particular, the Torah?
Modern people think of the law as a kind of social contract. Man cannot survive alone and must live in a group for protection/security purposes. Conflicts inevitably arise when men live in a community. Therefore, rules and regulations were agreed upon, firstly unwritten and later written, to guide the conducts of social transactions. Later, an impartial third-party was institutionalized to settle disputes. This is a pragmatic way of thinking about the law. But in ancient times, people did not think of the law in this manner.
For example, in ancient China during the Spring-Autumn Period, there was a debate over whether laws should be inscribed on bronze tripods so as to be publicly accessible 【鑄刑鼎】. This proposal was made out of pragmatic considerations. The Central Government was too weak to maintain orders among the warring states in the feudal system. Justice was arbitrary and favoured the nobility. Some political reformers saw that the productivity of the society was eroded by unrestrained personal greed of the rich and the nobility. Something needed to be done lest their country would be conquered by mightier warring states. Once the law was written down to be observed by all, commoners would be on equal footing with nobles. Hopefully, such reforms would rebuild the military strength of the country. This was a progressive political idea. Confucius opposed this idea. He believed that when the commoners knew more about the letters of the laws, they would raise more disputes to seek advantages instead of building up a good virtue which was the political ideal of Confucius who lived 500 years before Christ. His was an idealistic way of reasoning.
Paul was trained a Pharisee, an expert in the Torah, the five books of Moses. The Torah was more than regulations and legal codes. It was a book of guidelines, teaching the Israelites how to lead a life pleasing to God, to be a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (Exodus 19:6). On a deeper theological level, the Torah was a sign of their covenant with God.
However, the way Paul put it, the Torah is rather negative.
that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God
ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ (Romans 3:19b, KJV)
The KJV translation is well-known to be faithful. So, what did Paul had in mind when he said this? What was the purpose of the Torah? To stop people's mouth? To hold people guilty before God?
Earlier on, Paul explained that everybody should know God in the Creation and the law of God was written/hidden in the conscience of all men (Romans 2:15). This was the law of the unwritten kind. However, men, true descendants of Adam, always made excuses.
Oh! We know not the Law!
Oh! The Law is too idealistic!
Oh! The Law is too difficult etc.
Now, that the Torah was handed down from God, people could no longer make excuses that they did not know. With the law laid bare in front of them, what did they know?
In a negative way, they knew what they should not do. Hopefully, in a positive way, they knew what God intended them to do, to become: a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. The negative way was easier to grasp. Doing what should not be done (against God) is conveniently labelled a sin. This is how Paul continued.
by the law is the knowledge of sin.
διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας. (Romans 3:20b, KJV)
Once written down, the law sets a standard against which people's actions could be measured. That is why Paul equates sins with the coming short of God's glory. God gave the Israelites the Torah to make them a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. The glory of God would be manifested by the lives of this people. When they failed to become a holy nation, God's glory was not achieved.
(For) all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ (Romans 3:23).
Instead of being a source of wisdom and a guiding light for a righteous life (Psalm 119:104-105), the Torah has become a rod, a canon against which one's behaviour is measured. Paul was a bit too pragmatic and harsh here.
Dear Lord, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Strengthen my feet to walk along Your path. Amen.
Appendix:
Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, (Romans 3:10b)
ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος ἐν τῇ γῇ (Ecclesiastes 7:20a, LXX)
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, [οὐκ ἔστιν] ἕως ἑνός. (Romans 3:11-12).
εἰ ἔστιν συνίων ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν, οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. (Psalm 13:2b-3, LXX)
τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, (Romans 3:13a, Psalm 5:10b)
ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν· (Romans 3:13b, Psalm 139:4b, LXX)
ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (Romans 3:14-17, Psalm 13:3, LXX)
Paul was criticizing the Jews who were entrusted God's revelation and God's Law. They should have been the instructors of the blind and the ignorant. Yet they themselves did the same evil as those Gentiles. So, Paul asked some rhetorical questions: what are the advantages of circumcision, of keeping the law and of being a Jew etc? Jews were the first to receive glory as well as the first to receive punishment (Romans 2:9-10). God gave them circumcision as a sign of covenant. Yet, their lack of faith rendered the covenant ineffective. The Jews had failed to make good use of the advantages. In the end, both Jews and Gentiles were under the control of sins (Romans 3:9). To support this conclusion, Paul pieced together passages from the Wisdom Literature (Psalms and Ecclesiastes) to show that nobody could be righteous before God (Romans 3:10b-18, See Appendix below).
Now, what are the purposes of the law and in particular, the Torah?
Modern people think of the law as a kind of social contract. Man cannot survive alone and must live in a group for protection/security purposes. Conflicts inevitably arise when men live in a community. Therefore, rules and regulations were agreed upon, firstly unwritten and later written, to guide the conducts of social transactions. Later, an impartial third-party was institutionalized to settle disputes. This is a pragmatic way of thinking about the law. But in ancient times, people did not think of the law in this manner.
For example, in ancient China during the Spring-Autumn Period, there was a debate over whether laws should be inscribed on bronze tripods so as to be publicly accessible 【鑄刑鼎】. This proposal was made out of pragmatic considerations. The Central Government was too weak to maintain orders among the warring states in the feudal system. Justice was arbitrary and favoured the nobility. Some political reformers saw that the productivity of the society was eroded by unrestrained personal greed of the rich and the nobility. Something needed to be done lest their country would be conquered by mightier warring states. Once the law was written down to be observed by all, commoners would be on equal footing with nobles. Hopefully, such reforms would rebuild the military strength of the country. This was a progressive political idea. Confucius opposed this idea. He believed that when the commoners knew more about the letters of the laws, they would raise more disputes to seek advantages instead of building up a good virtue which was the political ideal of Confucius who lived 500 years before Christ. His was an idealistic way of reasoning.
Paul was trained a Pharisee, an expert in the Torah, the five books of Moses. The Torah was more than regulations and legal codes. It was a book of guidelines, teaching the Israelites how to lead a life pleasing to God, to be a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (Exodus 19:6). On a deeper theological level, the Torah was a sign of their covenant with God.
However, the way Paul put it, the Torah is rather negative.
that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God
ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ (Romans 3:19b, KJV)
The KJV translation is well-known to be faithful. So, what did Paul had in mind when he said this? What was the purpose of the Torah? To stop people's mouth? To hold people guilty before God?
Earlier on, Paul explained that everybody should know God in the Creation and the law of God was written/hidden in the conscience of all men (Romans 2:15). This was the law of the unwritten kind. However, men, true descendants of Adam, always made excuses.
Oh! We know not the Law!
Oh! The Law is too idealistic!
Oh! The Law is too difficult etc.
Now, that the Torah was handed down from God, people could no longer make excuses that they did not know. With the law laid bare in front of them, what did they know?
In a negative way, they knew what they should not do. Hopefully, in a positive way, they knew what God intended them to do, to become: a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. The negative way was easier to grasp. Doing what should not be done (against God) is conveniently labelled a sin. This is how Paul continued.
by the law is the knowledge of sin.
διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας. (Romans 3:20b, KJV)
Once written down, the law sets a standard against which people's actions could be measured. That is why Paul equates sins with the coming short of God's glory. God gave the Israelites the Torah to make them a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. The glory of God would be manifested by the lives of this people. When they failed to become a holy nation, God's glory was not achieved.
(For) all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ (Romans 3:23).
Instead of being a source of wisdom and a guiding light for a righteous life (Psalm 119:104-105), the Torah has become a rod, a canon against which one's behaviour is measured. Paul was a bit too pragmatic and harsh here.
Dear Lord, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Strengthen my feet to walk along Your path. Amen.
Appendix:
Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, (Romans 3:10b)
ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος ἐν τῇ γῇ (Ecclesiastes 7:20a, LXX)
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, [οὐκ ἔστιν] ἕως ἑνός. (Romans 3:11-12).
εἰ ἔστιν συνίων ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅμα ἠχρεώθησαν, οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. (Psalm 13:2b-3, LXX)
τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, (Romans 3:13a, Psalm 5:10b)
ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν· (Romans 3:13b, Psalm 139:4b, LXX)
ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει, ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα, σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (Romans 3:14-17, Psalm 13:3, LXX)
Sunday, 25 March 2012
The virtue of obedience
My youngest son, Symphorian, is a gifted child. My wife patiently helps him manage his emotions. Actually, Symphorian is a good boy. He wanted to watch TV. Yet, he obeyed his mother's instruction to do revision and played table tennis with me first. I needed to work out a bit earlier so that I might have time to write this blog. So, I wanted to play table tennis immediately at eight instead of the usual eight-thirty. Consequently, Symphorian would miss the Star War cartoon. In the end, he still obeyed and went down reluctantly to play table tennis for an hour with me. He did not assert his autonomy. This would be unimaginable for the bigger kids.
Since Enlightenment, Western philosophers have advocated rationality, which, Kant claimed, is the basis of human dignity. To act morally, we should treat man as an ends itself, not as a means, a tool, an instrument to achieve my ends, my happiness, my satisfaction. Man deserves respect and dignity all because of his rationality. These philosophers wanted to shake God off. They tried to remove God from their equations and discussions of existential questions. From human dignity, these philosophers developed the concepts of human rights and autonomy etc.
So, nowadays, the Western society tends to be very individualist. People care more about personal freedom than common good. Assertive people earn people's respect. Submissive people are losers in the society. Obedience, which was taken for granted in ancient times, has become an alien concept. Only slaves would obey their masters. But we are not slaves. We are our own masters. "You can take away my life, but you cannot take away my freedom, my dignity", runs a popular song. On Friday when the popular voting system was hacked, 200 thousand citizens came out to cast their votes, to exercise a right denied them. Though in the end, their voting would not change the outcome of the actual CE election this morning, these citizens demanded to be heard. They exercised their rights and did the right thing. Therefore, asserting autonomy is a good thing. Symphorian is still young. He has to depend financially on me. One day, he will claim his autonomy. I should respect him and should not force him to play table tennis with me.
With the demand for high level of autonomy so loudly voiced, the bible readings today gave a strange ring in our ears.
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Hebrews 5:8-9).
Why did Jesus give up his autonomy?
Why should Christians obey Christ?
One possible answer came from Genesis. God created everything but among them, only man was made in the image of God so as to enable man to engage in the dialogue with God, to share His eternal life. God gives man blessings and commands him to rule the known universe in His stead. Specifically, God commanded Adam, the first man, not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Unable to resist temptation, Adam exercised his autonomy and disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit. Sin entered the world and polluted it. God does not give up His Creation, namely, man and the universe. He sent the new Adam to restore and sublime the world into a higher level of consciousness. Obedience was the failure of the first Adam. Obedience becomes the success of the new Adam. He attained perfection because of his obedience. Christians who want to obtain eternal salvation need to obey Christ.
Such an explanation still fails to convince people of the importance of obedience.
Since modern men treasure rationality. Perhaps we can argue that God's intelligence is infinitely higher than ours. Therefore, His instructions are perfect. Just follow.
Still, how do you know God is such and such? Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unchanging etc. are inventions of theologians. At the end of the day, their God might not be like what they have been discussing.
Such questions are difficult. How do we know God is such and such? In fact, we don't. The only thing we know is that God loves the world so much so that He sent Jesus to come to die for us. Jesus chose freely to die for us. So, Jesus was autonomous when he chose to obey God's will, when he decided not to run away from his crucifixion. Moreover, when Christ is hoisted on the cross, he will attract people to believe in him (John 12:32). What more proof do we still want from God?
Dear Lord Jesus, help us see the bigger picture so that we can obey You more readily. Amen.
Since Enlightenment, Western philosophers have advocated rationality, which, Kant claimed, is the basis of human dignity. To act morally, we should treat man as an ends itself, not as a means, a tool, an instrument to achieve my ends, my happiness, my satisfaction. Man deserves respect and dignity all because of his rationality. These philosophers wanted to shake God off. They tried to remove God from their equations and discussions of existential questions. From human dignity, these philosophers developed the concepts of human rights and autonomy etc.
So, nowadays, the Western society tends to be very individualist. People care more about personal freedom than common good. Assertive people earn people's respect. Submissive people are losers in the society. Obedience, which was taken for granted in ancient times, has become an alien concept. Only slaves would obey their masters. But we are not slaves. We are our own masters. "You can take away my life, but you cannot take away my freedom, my dignity", runs a popular song. On Friday when the popular voting system was hacked, 200 thousand citizens came out to cast their votes, to exercise a right denied them. Though in the end, their voting would not change the outcome of the actual CE election this morning, these citizens demanded to be heard. They exercised their rights and did the right thing. Therefore, asserting autonomy is a good thing. Symphorian is still young. He has to depend financially on me. One day, he will claim his autonomy. I should respect him and should not force him to play table tennis with me.
With the demand for high level of autonomy so loudly voiced, the bible readings today gave a strange ring in our ears.
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Hebrews 5:8-9).
Why did Jesus give up his autonomy?
Why should Christians obey Christ?
One possible answer came from Genesis. God created everything but among them, only man was made in the image of God so as to enable man to engage in the dialogue with God, to share His eternal life. God gives man blessings and commands him to rule the known universe in His stead. Specifically, God commanded Adam, the first man, not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Unable to resist temptation, Adam exercised his autonomy and disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit. Sin entered the world and polluted it. God does not give up His Creation, namely, man and the universe. He sent the new Adam to restore and sublime the world into a higher level of consciousness. Obedience was the failure of the first Adam. Obedience becomes the success of the new Adam. He attained perfection because of his obedience. Christians who want to obtain eternal salvation need to obey Christ.
Such an explanation still fails to convince people of the importance of obedience.
Since modern men treasure rationality. Perhaps we can argue that God's intelligence is infinitely higher than ours. Therefore, His instructions are perfect. Just follow.
Still, how do you know God is such and such? Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unchanging etc. are inventions of theologians. At the end of the day, their God might not be like what they have been discussing.
Such questions are difficult. How do we know God is such and such? In fact, we don't. The only thing we know is that God loves the world so much so that He sent Jesus to come to die for us. Jesus chose freely to die for us. So, Jesus was autonomous when he chose to obey God's will, when he decided not to run away from his crucifixion. Moreover, when Christ is hoisted on the cross, he will attract people to believe in him (John 12:32). What more proof do we still want from God?
Dear Lord Jesus, help us see the bigger picture so that we can obey You more readily. Amen.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Shall our lack of faith make God lose faith in us?
In our daily life, cooperation always yields the best results for partners involved in zero-sum games. This is the findings of Game Theory in dealing with the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma. However, situations may arise in which a partner will defect, causing losses on the other party. Assuming the partners are locked up in a long-term relation, not a one-shot partnership. How should you proceed if your partner betrays you? Game theory comes up with a highly effective strategy call "Tit for Tat" to deal with such situations. Simply put,
Now, let me turn to the first rhetorical question in Romans 3. The other three rhetorical questions come about as a result of logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged (Romans 3:3-4).
Given that Jews quote from authorities to prove their points. For the moment, we put aside the question whether the readers, in this case the Roman Christians, would be convinced by such a practice or not. To begin with, let us take a look at the scripture Paul quotes to support his position: that God is faithful in spite of our disbelief.
There are many proof-texts to demonstrate God's faithfulness. For example, Paul could have quoted a more famous and direct passage from Isaiah:
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it (Isaiah 55:10-11).
Unexpectedly, Paul quotes a penitential psalm of David.
Here is the background of the psalm. In his adultery with Bathsheba, David had tried every means to cover up his track. All his efforts were frustrated by Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, who seemed to have known the affair. At last, he sent Uriah to his death. When God sent Nathan the prophet to reproach him, David immediately repented (2 Samuel 11-12). Psalm 51 was supposed to be written in this circumstance. Here, Paul quotes the Septuagint version word for word.
Ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε (Psalm 50:6, LXX; Psalm 51:4 KJV, Romans 3:4b).
Why did Paul choose this penitential psalm? How relevant was such a quotation? What was the underlying, implicit assumption Paul had in mind?
In this psalm, David confessed his sins and acknowledged the righteousness of God's judgment. When Paul quoted it, did he mean to say that we had sinned when we did not believe in God's oracles? How did we sin? What had we done? Then, is our lack of faith a sin?
Not doing our obligations is a sin of omission. When we do not believe in God's promise, have we done something wrong? Is believing in God an obligation?
God respects our free will, doesn't He? Don't we have the freedom not to believe?
It seems that, for Paul, not believing in God is a sin. This reminds me of the gospel we read yesterday. So, Paul and John reached a consensus here.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:17-18).
Who will believe that God has written a blank cheque to pay for all our debts? He has issued the cheque whether you believe it or not. God remains true. I think this is what Paul meant when he said,
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4a)
Has Paul been too sweepingly harsh in declaring that "every man a liar"? There must be some people who believe, including Paul for example. So, this is only rhetoric. But the logic does not follow. The 3 pieces of texts do not form a logical unity.
How does a penitential psalm proves that God is true and every man a liar?
How does the fact that God is true and every man a liar prove that God is faithful despite man's lack of faith?
Let me take a further step back. Paul was writing about the advantages of the Chosen People in that the oracles of God are committed to them (Romans 3:2). Then he talked about some people who did not believe in the oracles, yet God kept His faithfulness. He proved this by quoting David's penitential psalm. Now, the whole argument begins to make sense. Paul must have Nathan's Oracle (2 Samuel 7:12-16) in mind when he wrote the oracles of God were committed to the Chosen People. In the oracle, God promised David a throne, a kingdom which would last forever. This oracle in no ordinary prophecy. It is truly a great advantage for the Chosen People. However, this oracle carries with it certain warnings.
... If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him (2 Samuel 7:14b-15a)
So, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, he disregarded the warnings of the Oracle. His actions were interpreted as a disbelief in the promises of God. Yet, God would not retract His oath (Romans 3:3). God remained true. As a king, David represented the whole people of Israel. David was supposed to be an exemplar. And yet David failed. Then nobody would be exempted. Everybody would be a liar like David. The word "liar" makes sense because this was what David tried to do to cover his sinful track. That is why Paul said God is true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4a). Then Paul quoted David's confession to prove his point. Through the case of King David (God be true and every man a liar), Paul proves the general case for all men (God remains faithful despite men's lack of faith). Therefore, the first rhetorical question in Romans 3 is best understood in the context of Nathan's Oracle and David's adultery with Bathsheba.
Dear Lord, I praise You for Your wonderful work in turning evil into good. In Your unfailing love we trust. Amen.
- To begin with, cooperate.
- Retaliate only if provoked.
- Be quick to forgive.
Now, let me turn to the first rhetorical question in Romans 3. The other three rhetorical questions come about as a result of logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged (Romans 3:3-4).
Given that Jews quote from authorities to prove their points. For the moment, we put aside the question whether the readers, in this case the Roman Christians, would be convinced by such a practice or not. To begin with, let us take a look at the scripture Paul quotes to support his position: that God is faithful in spite of our disbelief.
There are many proof-texts to demonstrate God's faithfulness. For example, Paul could have quoted a more famous and direct passage from Isaiah:
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it (Isaiah 55:10-11).
Unexpectedly, Paul quotes a penitential psalm of David.
Here is the background of the psalm. In his adultery with Bathsheba, David had tried every means to cover up his track. All his efforts were frustrated by Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, who seemed to have known the affair. At last, he sent Uriah to his death. When God sent Nathan the prophet to reproach him, David immediately repented (2 Samuel 11-12). Psalm 51 was supposed to be written in this circumstance. Here, Paul quotes the Septuagint version word for word.
Ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε (Psalm 50:6, LXX; Psalm 51:4 KJV, Romans 3:4b).
Why did Paul choose this penitential psalm? How relevant was such a quotation? What was the underlying, implicit assumption Paul had in mind?
In this psalm, David confessed his sins and acknowledged the righteousness of God's judgment. When Paul quoted it, did he mean to say that we had sinned when we did not believe in God's oracles? How did we sin? What had we done? Then, is our lack of faith a sin?
Not doing our obligations is a sin of omission. When we do not believe in God's promise, have we done something wrong? Is believing in God an obligation?
God respects our free will, doesn't He? Don't we have the freedom not to believe?
It seems that, for Paul, not believing in God is a sin. This reminds me of the gospel we read yesterday. So, Paul and John reached a consensus here.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:17-18).
Who will believe that God has written a blank cheque to pay for all our debts? He has issued the cheque whether you believe it or not. God remains true. I think this is what Paul meant when he said,
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4a)
Has Paul been too sweepingly harsh in declaring that "every man a liar"? There must be some people who believe, including Paul for example. So, this is only rhetoric. But the logic does not follow. The 3 pieces of texts do not form a logical unity.
How does a penitential psalm proves that God is true and every man a liar?
How does the fact that God is true and every man a liar prove that God is faithful despite man's lack of faith?
Let me take a further step back. Paul was writing about the advantages of the Chosen People in that the oracles of God are committed to them (Romans 3:2). Then he talked about some people who did not believe in the oracles, yet God kept His faithfulness. He proved this by quoting David's penitential psalm. Now, the whole argument begins to make sense. Paul must have Nathan's Oracle (2 Samuel 7:12-16) in mind when he wrote the oracles of God were committed to the Chosen People. In the oracle, God promised David a throne, a kingdom which would last forever. This oracle in no ordinary prophecy. It is truly a great advantage for the Chosen People. However, this oracle carries with it certain warnings.
... If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him (2 Samuel 7:14b-15a)
So, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, he disregarded the warnings of the Oracle. His actions were interpreted as a disbelief in the promises of God. Yet, God would not retract His oath (Romans 3:3). God remained true. As a king, David represented the whole people of Israel. David was supposed to be an exemplar. And yet David failed. Then nobody would be exempted. Everybody would be a liar like David. The word "liar" makes sense because this was what David tried to do to cover his sinful track. That is why Paul said God is true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4a). Then Paul quoted David's confession to prove his point. Through the case of King David (God be true and every man a liar), Paul proves the general case for all men (God remains faithful despite men's lack of faith). Therefore, the first rhetorical question in Romans 3 is best understood in the context of Nathan's Oracle and David's adultery with Bathsheba.
Dear Lord, I praise You for Your wonderful work in turning evil into good. In Your unfailing love we trust. Amen.
Monday, 19 March 2012
The Wrath of God
Yesterday, I wrote about the mercy of God. Today, I turn to a diametrically opposite direction, the wrath of God. Before I dip into the mystery, I must confess that God is an unfathomable wonder. We know that Yahweh is a God of justice but also a God of mercy. However, we have to admit that the limited capacity of our mind is not capable of harmonizing these two apparently contradictory attributes of Yahweh. Yet, that doesn't discourage us from trying our best to explore them.
Many people lament the decline of morality in the society and find themselves helpless in view of the rapidity of the decline. Half a century ago, divorce and homosexuality were frowned upon and were topics of taboo. Nowadays, the mass media openly talk about extra-marital affairs and show sympathy towards homosexuals. Citizens are fed with graphic descriptions of sexual immorality until they are so numbed that in the name of tolerance, they do not feel offended and will not protest against unrestrained public display of obscenity.
Such tolerance is also shown in the way people, especially those working in the mass media, evaluate Judas' betrayal of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century, the movie industry in the West has been very sympathetic towards Judas. Basically, the producers/playwrights reasoned that Judas was instrumental in bringing about the arrest of Jesus and thus the subsequent passion and resurrection. Without Judas, it would be unthinkable for Jesus to surrender himself/play into the hands of the Jewish authority who hated this Galilean Rabbi very much. They seemed to defend Judas by arguing why we should condemn Judas when his evil brought about good. This was exactly the kind of false teaching wrongly attributed to Paul and he complained about it here (Romans 3:8).
Romans 3 is particularly difficult to follow. I struggled with it for several days last week without producing any reflection. The problem, I think, lies in Paul's writing style. He asked rhetorically some questions without answering them because for him, the answers were very obvious. However, obvious answers are not so obvious after all. Paul took them up again in subsequent chapters but before we have read the whole epistle, we would be stuck.
Paul began his criticisms with the sins of Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32). Then he turned his attention to the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1, 21-23) who were supposed to know God's laws and were instructors and guides of the Gentiles (Romans 2:17-20). Thus, he had proved that both Jews and Gentiles were under the sin (Romans 2:9, 3:9). But as the Chosen People, the Jews are always the first to receive glory as well as punishments before the Gentiles (Romans 2:9-10). Then Paul turned his attention to God. As a transition, Paul raised the question of the priority of the Jews.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (Romans 3:1)
A few verses earlier, Paul claimed that circumcision was beneficial on condition that the Jews kept God's law (Romans 2:25a). Now, he tried to spell out exactly what that profit was.
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2).
This is not the place to explain the advantages of knowing the oracles of God. Neither was Paul interested in convincing his readers of the advantages. Paul had something else in his mind.
Paul asked rhetorically.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (Romans 3:3)
Shall the lack of faith of the people disable the faithfulness of God. Of course not! (Romans 3:4).
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man (Romans 3:5).
If our unrighteousness shows God's righteousness, is God unrighteous in punishing us?
In other words, if our evil acts instrumentally brings about God's goodness, is God being unfair to inflict His wrath on us?
For Paul, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. God is NOT unrighteous in punishing evil-doers. Otherwise, God would be unable to judge the world (Romans 3:6).
Paul did not stop here. He continued with 2 more rhetorical questions.
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:7-8)
In fact, all 4 rhetorical questions are not at all rhetorical. The answers are not so obvious. They are debatable.
Dear Lord, help me understand St. Paul more. St. Joseph, pray for us. Amen.
Many people lament the decline of morality in the society and find themselves helpless in view of the rapidity of the decline. Half a century ago, divorce and homosexuality were frowned upon and were topics of taboo. Nowadays, the mass media openly talk about extra-marital affairs and show sympathy towards homosexuals. Citizens are fed with graphic descriptions of sexual immorality until they are so numbed that in the name of tolerance, they do not feel offended and will not protest against unrestrained public display of obscenity.
Such tolerance is also shown in the way people, especially those working in the mass media, evaluate Judas' betrayal of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century, the movie industry in the West has been very sympathetic towards Judas. Basically, the producers/playwrights reasoned that Judas was instrumental in bringing about the arrest of Jesus and thus the subsequent passion and resurrection. Without Judas, it would be unthinkable for Jesus to surrender himself/play into the hands of the Jewish authority who hated this Galilean Rabbi very much. They seemed to defend Judas by arguing why we should condemn Judas when his evil brought about good. This was exactly the kind of false teaching wrongly attributed to Paul and he complained about it here (Romans 3:8).
Romans 3 is particularly difficult to follow. I struggled with it for several days last week without producing any reflection. The problem, I think, lies in Paul's writing style. He asked rhetorically some questions without answering them because for him, the answers were very obvious. However, obvious answers are not so obvious after all. Paul took them up again in subsequent chapters but before we have read the whole epistle, we would be stuck.
Paul began his criticisms with the sins of Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32). Then he turned his attention to the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1, 21-23) who were supposed to know God's laws and were instructors and guides of the Gentiles (Romans 2:17-20). Thus, he had proved that both Jews and Gentiles were under the sin (Romans 2:9, 3:9). But as the Chosen People, the Jews are always the first to receive glory as well as punishments before the Gentiles (Romans 2:9-10). Then Paul turned his attention to God. As a transition, Paul raised the question of the priority of the Jews.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (Romans 3:1)
A few verses earlier, Paul claimed that circumcision was beneficial on condition that the Jews kept God's law (Romans 2:25a). Now, he tried to spell out exactly what that profit was.
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:2).
This is not the place to explain the advantages of knowing the oracles of God. Neither was Paul interested in convincing his readers of the advantages. Paul had something else in his mind.
Paul asked rhetorically.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (Romans 3:3)
Shall the lack of faith of the people disable the faithfulness of God. Of course not! (Romans 3:4).
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man (Romans 3:5).
If our unrighteousness shows God's righteousness, is God unrighteous in punishing us?
In other words, if our evil acts instrumentally brings about God's goodness, is God being unfair to inflict His wrath on us?
For Paul, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. God is NOT unrighteous in punishing evil-doers. Otherwise, God would be unable to judge the world (Romans 3:6).
Paul did not stop here. He continued with 2 more rhetorical questions.
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:7-8)
In fact, all 4 rhetorical questions are not at all rhetorical. The answers are not so obvious. They are debatable.
- Shall our lack of faith make God lose faith in us?
- If our wickedness shows the justice of God, is God unjust to inflict wrath on us?
- If our lies show God's truth in high contrast, why are we guilty?
- Why not do evil so that good may come?
Dear Lord, help me understand St. Paul more. St. Joseph, pray for us. Amen.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Take a look again at God's mercy
God is merciful. Even His chastisement is merciful.
In the Old Testament, God followed a certain modus operandi in dealing with the Israelites.
After crossing the Red Sea, God brought the Israelites to Mount Sinai to establish a covenant with them. God wanted to make the Israelites a kingom of priests, a holy nation (Exodus 19:6a). God called Moses up Mount Sinai to converse with him for 40 days to give him the Ten Commandments. However, the Israelites below grew impatient and insecure. They forced Aaron to make them a golden calf for worship and led them back to Egypt! Naturally, God was mad with them. He punished the Israelites by sending them into the wilderness to wander for 40 years before entering Canaan, an Exodus which would have lasted no more than a few months. The objective? I guess God wanted to cleanse the Israelites of the polluted elements which they carried with them out of Egypt. Thus, only a new generation of Israelites, uncontaminated by the idolatry in Egypt were admitted into Canaan
Again, the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered twice by Babylon because all the people ignored the warnings from the prophets and fell for idolatry. They were twice exiled to Babylon. When Cyrus, the Persian king, in turn conquered Babylon and decreed that the Jews should return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple of God, it was 70 years (50 years) later (2 Chronicles 36:21). Those Jews that returned must be a new generation of Jews. The objective? Again, I guess God wanted a new creation.
When a country is conquered by another, there must have been a lot of bloodshed and atrocities. Many people, including innocent civilians suffered terribly. So, how does such cruelity square with the mercy of God? It is always difficult to defend God's actions. However, we should appreciate the fact that God did not punish to the fullest extent. Consider the following verses against idolatry.
you shall not bow down to them (man-made idols) or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6)
Nowadays, we take 30 years as one generation. Remember this is a modern number. In ancient times, perhaps a girl would become a mother at 13. So, let's take 15 years as one generation. Therefore, 3 generations would be 45 years and 4 generations 60. Therefore, God is faithful and keeps His promises, even in His punishment! The Israelites wandered for less than 3 generations before entering Canaan and the Jews were exiled for less than 4 generations before returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.
If you are still not satisfied with God's leniency, let me give you one more example from Genesis.
God warned Adam that he would die the day he ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17). Yet Adam died at the age of 930 (Genesis 5:5). Did God tell lie? Of course not. It is because God lived in a different time frame. For Him, a thousand years are no more than a day (Psalm 90:4). So, God still keeps His words and He has been very lenient to man.
God would have been indifferent. He would have created the universe, left us there and let the cosmo run according to some natural laws. He would have been a distant and reticent Creator. Yet, He continually intervened in human history. It shows that He cares. More than that, He loves by sending His only Son, Jesus, to die for us to redeem us.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:16-17).
God loves. God does not condemn. We do not love ourselves. We eat the cake we bake.
Even though God is merciful, we should be prepared to suffer the consequences of our sins. Don't blame God for our sufferings.
Dear Lord, in Your mercy we trust. Motivate me to repent, to confess and to seek reconciliation. Amen.
In the Old Testament, God followed a certain modus operandi in dealing with the Israelites.
After crossing the Red Sea, God brought the Israelites to Mount Sinai to establish a covenant with them. God wanted to make the Israelites a kingom of priests, a holy nation (Exodus 19:6a). God called Moses up Mount Sinai to converse with him for 40 days to give him the Ten Commandments. However, the Israelites below grew impatient and insecure. They forced Aaron to make them a golden calf for worship and led them back to Egypt! Naturally, God was mad with them. He punished the Israelites by sending them into the wilderness to wander for 40 years before entering Canaan, an Exodus which would have lasted no more than a few months. The objective? I guess God wanted to cleanse the Israelites of the polluted elements which they carried with them out of Egypt. Thus, only a new generation of Israelites, uncontaminated by the idolatry in Egypt were admitted into Canaan
Again, the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered twice by Babylon because all the people ignored the warnings from the prophets and fell for idolatry. They were twice exiled to Babylon. When Cyrus, the Persian king, in turn conquered Babylon and decreed that the Jews should return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple of God, it was 70 years (50 years) later (2 Chronicles 36:21). Those Jews that returned must be a new generation of Jews. The objective? Again, I guess God wanted a new creation.
When a country is conquered by another, there must have been a lot of bloodshed and atrocities. Many people, including innocent civilians suffered terribly. So, how does such cruelity square with the mercy of God? It is always difficult to defend God's actions. However, we should appreciate the fact that God did not punish to the fullest extent. Consider the following verses against idolatry.
you shall not bow down to them (man-made idols) or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6)
Nowadays, we take 30 years as one generation. Remember this is a modern number. In ancient times, perhaps a girl would become a mother at 13. So, let's take 15 years as one generation. Therefore, 3 generations would be 45 years and 4 generations 60. Therefore, God is faithful and keeps His promises, even in His punishment! The Israelites wandered for less than 3 generations before entering Canaan and the Jews were exiled for less than 4 generations before returning to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.
If you are still not satisfied with God's leniency, let me give you one more example from Genesis.
God warned Adam that he would die the day he ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17). Yet Adam died at the age of 930 (Genesis 5:5). Did God tell lie? Of course not. It is because God lived in a different time frame. For Him, a thousand years are no more than a day (Psalm 90:4). So, God still keeps His words and He has been very lenient to man.
God would have been indifferent. He would have created the universe, left us there and let the cosmo run according to some natural laws. He would have been a distant and reticent Creator. Yet, He continually intervened in human history. It shows that He cares. More than that, He loves by sending His only Son, Jesus, to die for us to redeem us.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:16-17).
God loves. God does not condemn. We do not love ourselves. We eat the cake we bake.
Even though God is merciful, we should be prepared to suffer the consequences of our sins. Don't blame God for our sufferings.
Dear Lord, in Your mercy we trust. Motivate me to repent, to confess and to seek reconciliation. Amen.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
There were Jewish Christians in Rome
As I have suggested earlier, there must be Jewish Christians in Rome. Acts of the Apostles describes Paul's house-arrest in Rome, waiting to appeal to Caesar. He met local leaders of the Jews (Acts 28:17) and gathered a great crowd around him to listen to his preaching. Some Jews were converted while others remained skeptical (Acts 28:23-24).
Paul was not the first to preach to the Jews in Rome. If Paul could convert some, I am sure others before him, probably those who fled from his previous persecutions, were able to convert some Jews who would be reading this Epistle to the Romans. Here in Romans 2, we find clear references to Jewish Christians in the Roman Church. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. There must be Jewish businessmen as well as Jewish Christians from all over the world. Jewish Christians together with Gentile Christians formed the Christian Church in Rome. Therefore, the audience of the Epistle to the Romans must consist of a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians.
From the observation above, it is reasonable to believe that Romans 2 addresses the Jewish section of the Christian Church in Rome. Perhaps Paul wrote to them because it was the Jewish Christians who passed judgment on Gentile non-believers. So, when Paul wrote "to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles" twice (Romans 2:9-10), he was encouraging/warning the Jewish Christians that they would be the first to receive glory/punishment if they did good/evil things. God does not care whether they were Jews or Gentiles (Romans 2:11).
The Jews had the advantage of possessing/knowing the Law of God. However, such knowledge is of no use if they did not practise it.
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13)
Martin Luther would be very much disappointed to hear that doers of the law shall be justified. His teaching of "sola fide" is refuted because faith is not the only way to attain justification. Keeping the law can also attain justification. Luther could not have missed this passage, nor could people cover this text up successfully. Luther simply bypasses it, does not mention it.
God is fair. He would not let the Gentiles suffer the disadvantage of not having a Moses to hand down His Law to them. Still, they were able to follow their conscience and continued to prepare themselves to meet God's judgment at the end of the world (Romans 2:15-16).
Here, Paul brilliantly set out the functions of our conscience: as God's Law written in our hearts, conscience accuses and excuses. Our conscience would condemn us and make us feel guilty (accuses) if we do not follow the advice it offers us (excuse) and make moral mistakes.
Then Paul speaks once more heart to heart with his fellow Jews.
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (Romans 2:17-23)
Is it a caricature of all the Jews, or just the Pharisees who were portrayed hypocrites in the gospels?
Did Paul write from his personal experiences or what he had met among the Roman Jews?
Then, he turned to touch the nerves of the Jews --- circumcision! From this, Paul concludes that the outside does not count. Only the inside counts.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:28-29).
Dear Lord, I do not dare to show my inside which is very ugly. I am a hypocrite. I do not dare to express my displeasure which may turn wild out of control. I am sorry for being angry with Brenda this morning. Forgive me, Lord. Amen.
Paul was not the first to preach to the Jews in Rome. If Paul could convert some, I am sure others before him, probably those who fled from his previous persecutions, were able to convert some Jews who would be reading this Epistle to the Romans. Here in Romans 2, we find clear references to Jewish Christians in the Roman Church. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. There must be Jewish businessmen as well as Jewish Christians from all over the world. Jewish Christians together with Gentile Christians formed the Christian Church in Rome. Therefore, the audience of the Epistle to the Romans must consist of a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians.
From the observation above, it is reasonable to believe that Romans 2 addresses the Jewish section of the Christian Church in Rome. Perhaps Paul wrote to them because it was the Jewish Christians who passed judgment on Gentile non-believers. So, when Paul wrote "to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles" twice (Romans 2:9-10), he was encouraging/warning the Jewish Christians that they would be the first to receive glory/punishment if they did good/evil things. God does not care whether they were Jews or Gentiles (Romans 2:11).
The Jews had the advantage of possessing/knowing the Law of God. However, such knowledge is of no use if they did not practise it.
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13)
Martin Luther would be very much disappointed to hear that doers of the law shall be justified. His teaching of "sola fide" is refuted because faith is not the only way to attain justification. Keeping the law can also attain justification. Luther could not have missed this passage, nor could people cover this text up successfully. Luther simply bypasses it, does not mention it.
God is fair. He would not let the Gentiles suffer the disadvantage of not having a Moses to hand down His Law to them. Still, they were able to follow their conscience and continued to prepare themselves to meet God's judgment at the end of the world (Romans 2:15-16).
Here, Paul brilliantly set out the functions of our conscience: as God's Law written in our hearts, conscience accuses and excuses. Our conscience would condemn us and make us feel guilty (accuses) if we do not follow the advice it offers us (excuse) and make moral mistakes.
Then Paul speaks once more heart to heart with his fellow Jews.
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (Romans 2:17-23)
Is it a caricature of all the Jews, or just the Pharisees who were portrayed hypocrites in the gospels?
Did Paul write from his personal experiences or what he had met among the Roman Jews?
Then, he turned to touch the nerves of the Jews --- circumcision! From this, Paul concludes that the outside does not count. Only the inside counts.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:28-29).
Dear Lord, I do not dare to show my inside which is very ugly. I am a hypocrite. I do not dare to express my displeasure which may turn wild out of control. I am sorry for being angry with Brenda this morning. Forgive me, Lord. Amen.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Do not pass judgment on others
When we come to Romans 2, we may wonder whether there was any relation between Paul and Matthew. Both of them teach against passing judgment on others. However, Paul was writing a letter. His tone is more natural like face to face talking. Matthew is more highly refined and polished. He even expresses his teaching in parables and irony (splints vs. log in the eye!).
Forever a moralist, Paul was harsh in his wordings.
God has revealed His will in the Creation. They have no excuse of not knowing (Romans 1:20). They are able to know Him (Romans 1:21), His glory (1:23), His truth (1:25) and His judgment (1:32). Paul was speaking in the 3rd person plural. Who were they?
They could not be Jews because the Jews were supposed to know God. So, they were Gentiles. From the text between verses 21-31, we can conclude that they referred to Gentiles who worshipped idols. He has not yet torched, yes torched, the readers but it wouldn't be long.
Then Paul changed the subject into the 2nd person: thou. The readers suddenly discovered that Paul was pointing his fingers at them! You are inexcusably wrong when you pass judgment on those sinners mentioned above while you are doing the same wrong!
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Romans 2:1).
Those sinful Gentiles were inexcusable (Romans 1:20). Yet, the readers who judged other Gentiles were also inexcusable because they, assumed to be Gentiles Christians, were doing the same things (Romans 2:1).
What does that mean?
It seems to me that once a Gentile became a Christian, he could start judging his fellow Gentiles who had not yet converted. That is to say, becoming a Christian made the convert think that he was in a superior position to judge.
Paul had never visited Rome before. Perhaps it was out of courtesy that Paul praised the Roman Christians for their faith which was famous, spoken of throughout the world. (Romans 1:8). Now, he began to criticize them. In terms of their behaviours, the Roman Christians were not different from the other Gentiles who worshipped idols. How dared they to pass judgment of their fellow Gentiles! So, what did Paul actually hear about the Roman Church? What problems was the Roman Church facing so much so that Paul wanted to write to them?
That said, the text also applies to Jewish Christians living in Rome. They were the Chosen People. So, even before they became Christians, they believed that they were able to pass judgment on the Gentiles. Here, Paul was in a better position to write to them because being a Pharisee, Paul knew more about his fellow Jews than the contemporary Gentiles.
Whether the readers were Jewish or Gentile Christians, the worst attitude, as Paul saw it, was to abuse the patience of God.
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
God always gives us a second chance, to allow us to change for the better to receive more blessings. However, many times, we capitalize on God's forbearance and continue to indulge in gratification of our lust. Too bad! We continue to inflict damages on our body and soul.
Paul's conception of justice is straight forward. God
will render to every man according to his deeds (Romans 2:6).
You will be rewarded glory, honour and peace for doing good (Romans 2:7, 10) and sufferings for doing evil (Romans 2:8-9). Notice the chiastic structure (ABBA) here, a Semitic signature. Paul did not give up his roots. He was still a Jew in heart. Therefore, he mentioned "Jews first and then the Gentiles", twice (vv. 2:9-10). It is not the place to discuss the sufferings of good and righteous people. Simply bear in mind that those who judge others will be judged by God as well.
For there is no respect of persons with God (Romans 2:11).
Here, Paul portrayed a legalistic God very much different from the loving Father of Jesus. Perhaps Paul was not too familiar with his readers yet. He could not tell them the kind of Christian freedom preached by John. To play safe, he would only write legalistically, which was more palatable for Roman readers.
Dear Lord, pull out the log in my eyes. Cleanse me. Amen
Forever a moralist, Paul was harsh in his wordings.
God has revealed His will in the Creation. They have no excuse of not knowing (Romans 1:20). They are able to know Him (Romans 1:21), His glory (1:23), His truth (1:25) and His judgment (1:32). Paul was speaking in the 3rd person plural. Who were they?
They could not be Jews because the Jews were supposed to know God. So, they were Gentiles. From the text between verses 21-31, we can conclude that they referred to Gentiles who worshipped idols. He has not yet torched, yes torched, the readers but it wouldn't be long.
Then Paul changed the subject into the 2nd person: thou. The readers suddenly discovered that Paul was pointing his fingers at them! You are inexcusably wrong when you pass judgment on those sinners mentioned above while you are doing the same wrong!
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Romans 2:1).
Those sinful Gentiles were inexcusable (Romans 1:20). Yet, the readers who judged other Gentiles were also inexcusable because they, assumed to be Gentiles Christians, were doing the same things (Romans 2:1).
What does that mean?
It seems to me that once a Gentile became a Christian, he could start judging his fellow Gentiles who had not yet converted. That is to say, becoming a Christian made the convert think that he was in a superior position to judge.
Paul had never visited Rome before. Perhaps it was out of courtesy that Paul praised the Roman Christians for their faith which was famous, spoken of throughout the world. (Romans 1:8). Now, he began to criticize them. In terms of their behaviours, the Roman Christians were not different from the other Gentiles who worshipped idols. How dared they to pass judgment of their fellow Gentiles! So, what did Paul actually hear about the Roman Church? What problems was the Roman Church facing so much so that Paul wanted to write to them?
That said, the text also applies to Jewish Christians living in Rome. They were the Chosen People. So, even before they became Christians, they believed that they were able to pass judgment on the Gentiles. Here, Paul was in a better position to write to them because being a Pharisee, Paul knew more about his fellow Jews than the contemporary Gentiles.
Whether the readers were Jewish or Gentile Christians, the worst attitude, as Paul saw it, was to abuse the patience of God.
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
God always gives us a second chance, to allow us to change for the better to receive more blessings. However, many times, we capitalize on God's forbearance and continue to indulge in gratification of our lust. Too bad! We continue to inflict damages on our body and soul.
Paul's conception of justice is straight forward. God
will render to every man according to his deeds (Romans 2:6).
You will be rewarded glory, honour and peace for doing good (Romans 2:7, 10) and sufferings for doing evil (Romans 2:8-9). Notice the chiastic structure (ABBA) here, a Semitic signature. Paul did not give up his roots. He was still a Jew in heart. Therefore, he mentioned "Jews first and then the Gentiles", twice (vv. 2:9-10). It is not the place to discuss the sufferings of good and righteous people. Simply bear in mind that those who judge others will be judged by God as well.
For there is no respect of persons with God (Romans 2:11).
Here, Paul portrayed a legalistic God very much different from the loving Father of Jesus. Perhaps Paul was not too familiar with his readers yet. He could not tell them the kind of Christian freedom preached by John. To play safe, he would only write legalistically, which was more palatable for Roman readers.
Dear Lord, pull out the log in my eyes. Cleanse me. Amen
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Our Body is a temple
The Synoptic Gospels record one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem during his earthly ministry. In this only visit to the capital, Jesus drove out the traders in the courtyard of the Temple, the second one built by the Jews returning from Babylon at around 519 B.C. and took 3 years to finish. To please the people, Herod the Great started renovating it extensively, beginning at around 19 B.C.
From the gospel reading today, we learn that the renovation work of the Temple had been going on continually for decades.
The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" (John 2:20)
The Gospel of John mentioned several visits of Jesus to Jerusalem. During the very first one, Jesus had antagonized the Jewish authority for cleansing the Temple. That explains why Jesus met so many enemies and opposition from his own people during his earthly ministry. The Synoptic Gospels condense these visits into one last visit near the end of Jesus' ministry.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quoted Jeremiah 7:11, saying that the Jewish authority which managed the Temple had turned it into a den of robbers (Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46). However, in John, Jesus said in his own authority that the people had turned the Temple into an emporium (a house of negotiations). But it was the disciples who remembered a quotation from Psalm 69:9 which does not condemn anybody.
And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." (John 2:16-17)
When the Jews demanded Jesus to show them what authority he had in causing disorders in the Temple, Jesus made a very tricky, sly and apparently irresponsible answer.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).
Of course we understand what Jesus meant. But please think about those pitiful Jews who were ignorant of what Jesus actually was. Who, in his sanity, would pull down the Temple for a Galilean Rabbi who boasted of his capability to rebuild it in just three days? Even Herod the Great had to amass enough building materials next to the Temple site before he started pulling it down and rebuilding it in 18 months. Jesus did not give them any down payment or reassurance. No wonder nobody would believe him. Even his disciples would not believe until his resurrection. After that, they understood his words and the meaning of the scripture.
But he spoke of the temple of his body.
When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:21-22)
What scripture? It can only be the Psalm. "Zeal for thy house will consume me."
What did the disciples believe? That this passage came true in the most literal way: Jesus demonstrated his zeal for God's Temple and this cost his life. He paid the price by dying on the cross.
The word "consume" means "to eat/be eaten" both in Hebrew and Greek. Thus, in another level, this verse is fulfilled in the bread of life, the sacrament of the Eucharist. Suddenly, everything falls into place and makes sense.
Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. His body is the new Temple, the Church. This is the teaching of the Mystic Body. Jesus is the Head of the Body and we are the members of the Body (meaning limbs and body parts) as well as members of the Church (as an organization).
His body is also the bread of life, to be consumed by his believers. His body is the sacrament that nourishes the believers.
Forever a moralist, Paul the Pharisee develops this body image and opposes prostitution and all kinds of sexual immorality. Paul teaches that our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16). The Holy Spirit dwells in this Temple. Since all sexual sins are defilement of the body. Therefore, sexual immorality is a defilement of the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:15-19). Paul needed only to take one further step to turn the Temple of the Holy Spirit into a sacrament. He didn't perhaps he had not yet developed the concept of a sacrament. When the second generation Christians tried to explain their beliefs to the Greek civilization, they unwittingly adopted their philosophy and despised the body. The Christians in subsequent generations forgot Paul's teaching and had never dreamt of the body as a sacrament.
The Roman Catholic Church has developed a mature theology of the Sacrament. Simply put, a sacrament is a visible sign signifying the invisible grace granted by God. In a sacrament, we encounter God and received His blessing. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. Jesus is the proto-sacrament from which all other sacraments are derived. The Church is the basic sacrament of Jesus. From the Church, we receive the 7 sacraments.
The late Pope John Paul II develops a theology of the body in his 170 plus homilies. He applies the concept of sacrament to the body. Our body is the visible sign of the invisible '"I/me", the materialization of the "I/me" as a person. That is why Genesis says that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Our body is also our gift to our spouse, to the others and to the world. In short, our body is also a sacrament. With this body, the others encounter a visible me, an image of God. Through me, the others receive the blessings from God. At last, our body has reclaimed its dignity.
Jesus has already taught us this theology of the body when he points to his body and calls it "Temple". Truly, our body is a temple which is a sacrament that brings blessings and grace to the people we meet.
Dear Lord, forgive me for not keeping this temple clean. I pray that I go to confession before Easter. Amen.
From the gospel reading today, we learn that the renovation work of the Temple had been going on continually for decades.
The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" (John 2:20)
The Gospel of John mentioned several visits of Jesus to Jerusalem. During the very first one, Jesus had antagonized the Jewish authority for cleansing the Temple. That explains why Jesus met so many enemies and opposition from his own people during his earthly ministry. The Synoptic Gospels condense these visits into one last visit near the end of Jesus' ministry.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quoted Jeremiah 7:11, saying that the Jewish authority which managed the Temple had turned it into a den of robbers (Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46). However, in John, Jesus said in his own authority that the people had turned the Temple into an emporium (a house of negotiations). But it was the disciples who remembered a quotation from Psalm 69:9 which does not condemn anybody.
And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." (John 2:16-17)
When the Jews demanded Jesus to show them what authority he had in causing disorders in the Temple, Jesus made a very tricky, sly and apparently irresponsible answer.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).
Of course we understand what Jesus meant. But please think about those pitiful Jews who were ignorant of what Jesus actually was. Who, in his sanity, would pull down the Temple for a Galilean Rabbi who boasted of his capability to rebuild it in just three days? Even Herod the Great had to amass enough building materials next to the Temple site before he started pulling it down and rebuilding it in 18 months. Jesus did not give them any down payment or reassurance. No wonder nobody would believe him. Even his disciples would not believe until his resurrection. After that, they understood his words and the meaning of the scripture.
But he spoke of the temple of his body.
When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:21-22)
What scripture? It can only be the Psalm. "Zeal for thy house will consume me."
What did the disciples believe? That this passage came true in the most literal way: Jesus demonstrated his zeal for God's Temple and this cost his life. He paid the price by dying on the cross.
The word "consume" means "to eat/be eaten" both in Hebrew and Greek. Thus, in another level, this verse is fulfilled in the bread of life, the sacrament of the Eucharist. Suddenly, everything falls into place and makes sense.
Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. His body is the new Temple, the Church. This is the teaching of the Mystic Body. Jesus is the Head of the Body and we are the members of the Body (meaning limbs and body parts) as well as members of the Church (as an organization).
His body is also the bread of life, to be consumed by his believers. His body is the sacrament that nourishes the believers.
Forever a moralist, Paul the Pharisee develops this body image and opposes prostitution and all kinds of sexual immorality. Paul teaches that our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16). The Holy Spirit dwells in this Temple. Since all sexual sins are defilement of the body. Therefore, sexual immorality is a defilement of the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:15-19). Paul needed only to take one further step to turn the Temple of the Holy Spirit into a sacrament. He didn't perhaps he had not yet developed the concept of a sacrament. When the second generation Christians tried to explain their beliefs to the Greek civilization, they unwittingly adopted their philosophy and despised the body. The Christians in subsequent generations forgot Paul's teaching and had never dreamt of the body as a sacrament.
The Roman Catholic Church has developed a mature theology of the Sacrament. Simply put, a sacrament is a visible sign signifying the invisible grace granted by God. In a sacrament, we encounter God and received His blessing. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. Jesus is the proto-sacrament from which all other sacraments are derived. The Church is the basic sacrament of Jesus. From the Church, we receive the 7 sacraments.
The late Pope John Paul II develops a theology of the body in his 170 plus homilies. He applies the concept of sacrament to the body. Our body is the visible sign of the invisible '"I/me", the materialization of the "I/me" as a person. That is why Genesis says that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Our body is also our gift to our spouse, to the others and to the world. In short, our body is also a sacrament. With this body, the others encounter a visible me, an image of God. Through me, the others receive the blessings from God. At last, our body has reclaimed its dignity.
Jesus has already taught us this theology of the body when he points to his body and calls it "Temple". Truly, our body is a temple which is a sacrament that brings blessings and grace to the people we meet.
Dear Lord, forgive me for not keeping this temple clean. I pray that I go to confession before Easter. Amen.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Sin and Punishment
When we commit a crime and convicted, we are punished. When we commit a mortal sin, what is the punishment? Accident? Illness? Misfortune? Hell?
God is love and some people reason that God will save all. Otherwise, God's creation is not perfect because some of His products fall short of standard. In other words, hell will be empty of human beings. Perhaps even Satan would be forgiven. Then hell will be totally empty.
If such thinking is too optimistic, let us take a look at the history of the Chosen People. God has already warned them beforehand. If they follow the commandments of God, God will bless them for thousands of generations. If they disobey, God will chasten them for three to four generations. Yes, God will punish but God still leaves them room for repentance. For example, the southern kingdom worshipped idols. God sent the Babylonians to conquer and exile them. Fifty years later, the Persians conquered the Babylonians and sent the Jews home to rebuild their Temple. Happy ending!
Let's turn our attention to another direction. What are the causes of homosexuality? It has been a nature-nurture debate since the sexual revolution in 1960's. Some scientists try to look for biological/genetic explanation of homosexual behaviour. Others look elsewhere such as children traumatic experience, domineering mothers plus submissive fathers etc. to look for an explanation. None of the findings are conclusive and the controversy continues.
Paul has a very peculiar explanation of homosexuality in the eyes of modern men.
According to his theology, the invisible God reveals Himself in the visible creation of the world. Therefore, man has no excuse of not knowing God
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)
OK, Paul was not condemning the atheist scientists. He was playing the role of a moralist in his writing to the Romans. Paul argued that since men has no excuse of not knowing God, their behaviour should follow God's will and they should lead a moral life. God will be angry with ungodly and unrighteous men.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (Romans 1:18)
In Paul's mind, the worst, the most ungodly and unrighteous sin is idolatry.
So, how does God show His wrath, His displeasure? By giving them up to more sins (Romans 1:24, 26, 28)!!
If you worship idols (1:23), God will give you up to uncleanness through the lusts of your own hearts (1:24).
If you changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped idols (1:25), you will become homosexual, both gays and lesbians (1:26-27).
If you do not want to know God, perhaps another way of saying idolatry (1:28), you will commit a list of 24 sins (1:28c-31)!!
Therefore, for Paul the Pharisee, idolatry is the chief sin of all generations and all people. It was the root cause of the Jews being conquered by the Gentiles. It is the root cause of many other sins today. If showing anger is one of the many ways of punishment, God punishes in a peculiar way. He gives you up to Satan which would be too happy to torture you, not with illness or misfortune, but with more deadly sins. In a single stroke, Paul combines sins with their punishment. The punishment for sin is more sins. Does it mean anything to you?
Dear Lord, I know You will not give us up. We thank You. Save us. Amen.
God is love and some people reason that God will save all. Otherwise, God's creation is not perfect because some of His products fall short of standard. In other words, hell will be empty of human beings. Perhaps even Satan would be forgiven. Then hell will be totally empty.
If such thinking is too optimistic, let us take a look at the history of the Chosen People. God has already warned them beforehand. If they follow the commandments of God, God will bless them for thousands of generations. If they disobey, God will chasten them for three to four generations. Yes, God will punish but God still leaves them room for repentance. For example, the southern kingdom worshipped idols. God sent the Babylonians to conquer and exile them. Fifty years later, the Persians conquered the Babylonians and sent the Jews home to rebuild their Temple. Happy ending!
Let's turn our attention to another direction. What are the causes of homosexuality? It has been a nature-nurture debate since the sexual revolution in 1960's. Some scientists try to look for biological/genetic explanation of homosexual behaviour. Others look elsewhere such as children traumatic experience, domineering mothers plus submissive fathers etc. to look for an explanation. None of the findings are conclusive and the controversy continues.
Paul has a very peculiar explanation of homosexuality in the eyes of modern men.
According to his theology, the invisible God reveals Himself in the visible creation of the world. Therefore, man has no excuse of not knowing God
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)
OK, Paul was not condemning the atheist scientists. He was playing the role of a moralist in his writing to the Romans. Paul argued that since men has no excuse of not knowing God, their behaviour should follow God's will and they should lead a moral life. God will be angry with ungodly and unrighteous men.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (Romans 1:18)
In Paul's mind, the worst, the most ungodly and unrighteous sin is idolatry.
So, how does God show His wrath, His displeasure? By giving them up to more sins (Romans 1:24, 26, 28)!!
If you worship idols (1:23), God will give you up to uncleanness through the lusts of your own hearts (1:24).
If you changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped idols (1:25), you will become homosexual, both gays and lesbians (1:26-27).
If you do not want to know God, perhaps another way of saying idolatry (1:28), you will commit a list of 24 sins (1:28c-31)!!
Therefore, for Paul the Pharisee, idolatry is the chief sin of all generations and all people. It was the root cause of the Jews being conquered by the Gentiles. It is the root cause of many other sins today. If showing anger is one of the many ways of punishment, God punishes in a peculiar way. He gives you up to Satan which would be too happy to torture you, not with illness or misfortune, but with more deadly sins. In a single stroke, Paul combines sins with their punishment. The punishment for sin is more sins. Does it mean anything to you?
Dear Lord, I know You will not give us up. We thank You. Save us. Amen.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
The Gospel According to St. Paul
Paul had never met Jesus in person. Unlike the Twelve, he had never been among the disciples since Jesus began his earthly ministry. According to the criteria set forth to find somebody to replace Judas, Paul definitely failed to qualify to be one of the Twelve. The criteria were:
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)
Yet, Jesus appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:4-5) as well as in some other occasions (Acts 18:9). There is no doubt about his apostleship. However, since he did not spend the three years of earthly ministry with Jesus, we don't expect Paul to have witnessed and experienced the miracles, healings, exorcisms, conflicts with the Jewish authority, the Sermon on the Mount, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Last Supper, Crucifixion and Ascension etc. These are components of the gospels preached by the other Evangelists.
In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul explained more how he went to see Peter and obtained his understanding and approval. There was no contradictions in the gospel preached by both of them. Therefore, they were able to divide their labour: Paul and Barnabas preached to the Gentiles while Peter, James and John to the circumcised (Galatians 1:18-2:10). So, what sort of gospel was Paul preaching to the Gentiles? The gospel must be different from that of Peter and yet does not contradict Peter's as well as being appropriate for the Gentiles. That is to say, there should not be too many unnecessary Jewish materials.
In his own words, Paul wrote
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (Romans 1:16-17)
First of all, Paul is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
One wonders why people would feel ashamed to believe in the gospel of Christ. I suppose it was because Christ had died a shameful death in the eyes of his contemporaries. Christ was crucified. Therefore, in the eyes of his contemporaries, Christ was a failure or even worse, a criminal. The preaching of Christianity cannot leave out the crucifixion part of the Jesus event. Nowadays, the crucifixion of Jesus is no longer a taboo topic. It is difficult for us to imagine the kind of embarrassment Christians had to face when they told people that they believed in a crucified Jewish carpenter. Nowadays, believing in a crucified Jesus is easier and more comfortable.
What is the gospel of Christ according to Paul?
It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone that believes. In this gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed.
It is rather abstract and theological. I guess it means God is almighty. God uses His power to save us. We need to believe in Him if we want that salvation. God shows His righteousness when He saves us.
Still, such an exposition is not satisfactory.
Of course God is almighty. He could use His power to do anything. But why does He bother to use His power to save us? The standard answer is that God saves us because He loves us. I am not sure whether Paul buys this idea.
The next question would be why believing in God would obtain salvation. OK. This is the famous "Justification by Faith" theology of Paul. I am sure we will come across his exposition in this epistle.
Dear Lord, in Your love we trust. Amen.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)
Yet, Jesus appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:4-5) as well as in some other occasions (Acts 18:9). There is no doubt about his apostleship. However, since he did not spend the three years of earthly ministry with Jesus, we don't expect Paul to have witnessed and experienced the miracles, healings, exorcisms, conflicts with the Jewish authority, the Sermon on the Mount, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Last Supper, Crucifixion and Ascension etc. These are components of the gospels preached by the other Evangelists.
In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul explained more how he went to see Peter and obtained his understanding and approval. There was no contradictions in the gospel preached by both of them. Therefore, they were able to divide their labour: Paul and Barnabas preached to the Gentiles while Peter, James and John to the circumcised (Galatians 1:18-2:10). So, what sort of gospel was Paul preaching to the Gentiles? The gospel must be different from that of Peter and yet does not contradict Peter's as well as being appropriate for the Gentiles. That is to say, there should not be too many unnecessary Jewish materials.
In his own words, Paul wrote
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (Romans 1:16-17)
First of all, Paul is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
One wonders why people would feel ashamed to believe in the gospel of Christ. I suppose it was because Christ had died a shameful death in the eyes of his contemporaries. Christ was crucified. Therefore, in the eyes of his contemporaries, Christ was a failure or even worse, a criminal. The preaching of Christianity cannot leave out the crucifixion part of the Jesus event. Nowadays, the crucifixion of Jesus is no longer a taboo topic. It is difficult for us to imagine the kind of embarrassment Christians had to face when they told people that they believed in a crucified Jewish carpenter. Nowadays, believing in a crucified Jesus is easier and more comfortable.
What is the gospel of Christ according to Paul?
It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone that believes. In this gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed.
It is rather abstract and theological. I guess it means God is almighty. God uses His power to save us. We need to believe in Him if we want that salvation. God shows His righteousness when He saves us.
Still, such an exposition is not satisfactory.
Of course God is almighty. He could use His power to do anything. But why does He bother to use His power to save us? The standard answer is that God saves us because He loves us. I am not sure whether Paul buys this idea.
The next question would be why believing in God would obtain salvation. OK. This is the famous "Justification by Faith" theology of Paul. I am sure we will come across his exposition in this epistle.
Dear Lord, in Your love we trust. Amen.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
The attitude of a saint
Almost always immediately after the greeting, Paul thanks God for the virtues of faith, hope and charity of the church he is writing to, except for the church in Galatia. Once more, for the sake of comparison, I will collect 1 to 2 verses after the greetings.
"We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father." (1 Thessalonians 1:2-3)
"We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:" (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4)
"I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:" (1 Corinthians 1:4-6)
"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God." (2 Corinthians 1:3-4)
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:" (Galatians 1:6)
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Romans 1:8)
"Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;" (Ephesians 1:15-16)
"I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy," (Philippians 1:3-4)
"We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;" (Colossians 1:3-5)
St. Paul has set a good example for all leaders, be they spiritual or secular. Despite the shortcomings and sins found among the members of a church, Paul always found something to praise them before he scolded them. He praises them in an indirect way --- by giving thanks to God for their good performance. In this way, Paul taught the church members a good lesson. There is nothing we can boast of. Ultimately, our achievements are actually God's work.
Back to the epistle to the Romans. Paul wrote to them in the authority of an apostle. Yet, he made it clear that authority is for the service of God and the believers. How did Paul serve God?
He serves God "with my spirit in the gospel of his Son" (Romans 1:9b)
What does Paul mean? Remember that at his time of writing (about 58 A.D.), the canonical gospels were not yet in circulation. Be patient. Paul would make himself clear later.
What did Paul want to do with the Romans? He states his purpose explicitly.
"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me." (Romans 1:11-12)
What is that "spiritual gift"? Something that edifies, that establishes.
What sorts of comfort was Paul seeking? That more people believed in Christ.
"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." (Romans 1:14-15)
At last, it is clear that Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Romans. He felt that he owed people something. He felt that he owed the Greeks and the Barbarians, the wise and the unwise. Therefore, he owed the Romans something as well. Paul must do something. Otherwise, he would feel uncomfortable. This something is the preaching of the gospel.
This attitude is very important. Most of the time, missionaries make the mistake of taking up a paternalistic attitude towards the audience. They feel that they are bringing the savages salvation. The savages should thank them. On the contrary, Paul's attitude is the opposite. He is returning salvation to its rightful owners. Paul should thank his audience instead.
Teachers should learn from Paul. Most of the time, most teachers are paternalistic. They impart knowledge on the students who should thank the teachers. Paul corrects us. We should be student-centered. We are returning what rightfully belongs to the students. We should thank our students instead. Teachers, you cannot be arrogant!
Dear Lord, there is much to learn from St. Paul. Continue to enlighten us in appreciating his attitudes. Amen.
"We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father." (1 Thessalonians 1:2-3)
"We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:" (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4)
"I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:" (1 Corinthians 1:4-6)
"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God." (2 Corinthians 1:3-4)
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:" (Galatians 1:6)
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Romans 1:8)
"Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;" (Ephesians 1:15-16)
"I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy," (Philippians 1:3-4)
"We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;" (Colossians 1:3-5)
St. Paul has set a good example for all leaders, be they spiritual or secular. Despite the shortcomings and sins found among the members of a church, Paul always found something to praise them before he scolded them. He praises them in an indirect way --- by giving thanks to God for their good performance. In this way, Paul taught the church members a good lesson. There is nothing we can boast of. Ultimately, our achievements are actually God's work.
Back to the epistle to the Romans. Paul wrote to them in the authority of an apostle. Yet, he made it clear that authority is for the service of God and the believers. How did Paul serve God?
He serves God "with my spirit in the gospel of his Son" (Romans 1:9b)
What does Paul mean? Remember that at his time of writing (about 58 A.D.), the canonical gospels were not yet in circulation. Be patient. Paul would make himself clear later.
What did Paul want to do with the Romans? He states his purpose explicitly.
"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me." (Romans 1:11-12)
What is that "spiritual gift"? Something that edifies, that establishes.
What sorts of comfort was Paul seeking? That more people believed in Christ.
"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." (Romans 1:14-15)
At last, it is clear that Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Romans. He felt that he owed people something. He felt that he owed the Greeks and the Barbarians, the wise and the unwise. Therefore, he owed the Romans something as well. Paul must do something. Otherwise, he would feel uncomfortable. This something is the preaching of the gospel.
This attitude is very important. Most of the time, missionaries make the mistake of taking up a paternalistic attitude towards the audience. They feel that they are bringing the savages salvation. The savages should thank them. On the contrary, Paul's attitude is the opposite. He is returning salvation to its rightful owners. Paul should thank his audience instead.
Teachers should learn from Paul. Most of the time, most teachers are paternalistic. They impart knowledge on the students who should thank the teachers. Paul corrects us. We should be student-centered. We are returning what rightfully belongs to the students. We should thank our students instead. Teachers, you cannot be arrogant!
Dear Lord, there is much to learn from St. Paul. Continue to enlighten us in appreciating his attitudes. Amen.
An extraordinarily long greeting
Following accepted practices, Paul began his epistles with a greeting. However, the greeting in the Epistle to the Romans is extraordinarily long. For the sake of comparison, here is a collection of Paul's greetings in epistles to different churches.
"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 1:1) @51 A.D.
"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2) @52 A.D.
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:1-3) @56 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 1:1-2) @57 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," (Galatians 1:1-3) @57 A.D.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:1-7) @58 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Colossians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
Here, we can make some sketchy observations.
Removing the first and last verses in the greeting, we see his Christological position (Romans 1:2-6). Why did Paul insert such a creed in the greeting to an audience which he had never met before? Perhaps it was an issue the Romans had to handle and Paul would deal with it later in the epistle. Or perhaps it was a kind of identity statement, ensuring the Romans that the gospel he preached would not be too different from what the Romans believed ... or some other reasonable guesses.
I think I have tarried for too long in the greeting of the Romans. I had better proceed ahead.
Dear Lord, bear me on Your wings and help me see farther ahead. Amen.
"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 1:1) @51 A.D.
"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2) @52 A.D.
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:1-3) @56 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 1:1-2) @57 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," (Galatians 1:1-3) @57 A.D.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:1-7) @58 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Colossians 1:1-2) @63 A.D.
Here, we can make some sketchy observations.
- Without exception, Paul wishes the recipients grace and peace bestowed from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
- To the church in Thessalonia, Paul did not mention any office title. To the church that gave him the most pleasure, he called himself servant (Philippi). To the rest (Corinth, Galatia, Rome, Ephesus and Colossia), he called himself (even insisted that he was) apostle.
- To only two churches did Paul write in sole authority (Rome and Ephesus). To the rest, Paul included his coworkers (Silas, Timothy and Sosthenes).
- The epistle to the Romans is a turning point in the sense that Paul wrote to the churches before this epistle. Beginning with the Romans, Paul addresses to the saints in that particular location. Perhaps it was a Pauline theological insight that the Church is community made up of believers who are called to sainthood. It is more than an organization.
- The church in Philippi was more highly developed than the other churches because bishops and deacons are included in the greeting.
- Lastly, Paul was an itinerary apostle. He seldom stayed in the same place for a long time except for Ephesus. He set up a church, elected some elders to oversee it and left for other places. Later, Paul would write to the churches he himself had set up with the exception of Rome. Paul wrote to the Romans even though he had never been to Rome.
Removing the first and last verses in the greeting, we see his Christological position (Romans 1:2-6). Why did Paul insert such a creed in the greeting to an audience which he had never met before? Perhaps it was an issue the Romans had to handle and Paul would deal with it later in the epistle. Or perhaps it was a kind of identity statement, ensuring the Romans that the gospel he preached would not be too different from what the Romans believed ... or some other reasonable guesses.
I think I have tarried for too long in the greeting of the Romans. I had better proceed ahead.
Dear Lord, bear me on Your wings and help me see farther ahead. Amen.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Evolution of Ministry
Tonight, Fr. Stephen Chan Mun Hung, OFM gave his first of the three talks on the theology of ministry to members of the permanent diaconate, including the candidates and aspirants. He applied sociological reasoning in the understanding of the development of the hierarchy.
To begin with, he recalled that all Christians share the triple ministry of king, priest and prophet of Jesus through baptism. He warned that we are using Old Testament terms but we should not think that there is any logical continuity. We truly share these three offices with Jesus but not in the Old Testament manner.
When society was primitive, division of labour was not developed. It was common for a patriarch to take up several roles. For example, Abraham led his servants into battle like any ancient kings did (Genesis 14:14). He built altars to offer sacrifice like priests (Genesis 13:18). Furthermore, he was called a prophet in the story of Abimelech (Genesis 20:7). Even in Moses and those judges in Canaan can we find these 3 roles performed by a single person. However, when society evolved, division of labour became more sophisticated. The role of kings was separated from prophets with the election of Saul, the first Israelite king. When the first Temple was built, the role of priests was separated from kings. When the class of scripture copyists arose, priests would specialize in butchering and offering sacrifice. They no longer preached and taught the Law. In short, when a society evolves, more and more institutions arise to get things done in an effective and efficient manner.
Jesus was a charismatic leader. He did not work within the establishment. Jesus was not a Levite or member of the Zadok family. Thus, Jesus could not be a priest in the OT establishment. Yet. Jesus is the eternal High Priest, whose body is the true Temple and the true Sacrifice at the same time.
Jesus could not be a spokesman of God's word because he himself is the Word of God which the prophets speak about! Jesus came to reveal more clearly and directly God's love.
Jesus is the Universal King, not in the political sense. He comes to serve and to suffer for our sins. His dominion lies in conquering death.
That is why Fr. Stephen Chan warned us beforehand not to confine our thinking in the Old Testament manner. He also pointed out one important consequence of Jesus being outside the establishment: Jesus allows institutions to develop and adapt to the temporal and regional needs. The Church can be more flexible in adapting to different civilizations. Had Jesus come from within an establishment, the Church would have been bound by strict traditions.
Fr. Stephen Chan then turned to the early Church in the first century. He believed that Apostles and prophets mentioned in Pauline epistles were charismatic but itinerary leaders. Like Paul, their charisma prevented them from staying in the same place for too long. Bishops and deacons were bureaucratic resident leaders. They stayed in a local church to handle daily routines. Charismatic leaders could not pass on their charisma to their successors. They do not have successors. They are important and instrumental for the genesis of an organization but their leadership is doomed to be taken over by residential local leaders whose job descriptions can be written down in details.
In the end, Fr. Chan reminded us to keep in mind Jesus' ministry. He came to serve with love. The ministry of deacons belongs to routine ones. It can be repetitive and boring. However, each subject we serve is different. Therefore, the ministry is not totally routine. With the model of Jesus in mind, Fr. Chan is confident that we can do a good job.
Dear Lord, may Your words be our guiding light and burning fire to keep our compassion for the needy aglow. Amen.
To begin with, he recalled that all Christians share the triple ministry of king, priest and prophet of Jesus through baptism. He warned that we are using Old Testament terms but we should not think that there is any logical continuity. We truly share these three offices with Jesus but not in the Old Testament manner.
When society was primitive, division of labour was not developed. It was common for a patriarch to take up several roles. For example, Abraham led his servants into battle like any ancient kings did (Genesis 14:14). He built altars to offer sacrifice like priests (Genesis 13:18). Furthermore, he was called a prophet in the story of Abimelech (Genesis 20:7). Even in Moses and those judges in Canaan can we find these 3 roles performed by a single person. However, when society evolved, division of labour became more sophisticated. The role of kings was separated from prophets with the election of Saul, the first Israelite king. When the first Temple was built, the role of priests was separated from kings. When the class of scripture copyists arose, priests would specialize in butchering and offering sacrifice. They no longer preached and taught the Law. In short, when a society evolves, more and more institutions arise to get things done in an effective and efficient manner.
Jesus was a charismatic leader. He did not work within the establishment. Jesus was not a Levite or member of the Zadok family. Thus, Jesus could not be a priest in the OT establishment. Yet. Jesus is the eternal High Priest, whose body is the true Temple and the true Sacrifice at the same time.
Jesus could not be a spokesman of God's word because he himself is the Word of God which the prophets speak about! Jesus came to reveal more clearly and directly God's love.
Jesus is the Universal King, not in the political sense. He comes to serve and to suffer for our sins. His dominion lies in conquering death.
That is why Fr. Stephen Chan warned us beforehand not to confine our thinking in the Old Testament manner. He also pointed out one important consequence of Jesus being outside the establishment: Jesus allows institutions to develop and adapt to the temporal and regional needs. The Church can be more flexible in adapting to different civilizations. Had Jesus come from within an establishment, the Church would have been bound by strict traditions.
Fr. Stephen Chan then turned to the early Church in the first century. He believed that Apostles and prophets mentioned in Pauline epistles were charismatic but itinerary leaders. Like Paul, their charisma prevented them from staying in the same place for too long. Bishops and deacons were bureaucratic resident leaders. They stayed in a local church to handle daily routines. Charismatic leaders could not pass on their charisma to their successors. They do not have successors. They are important and instrumental for the genesis of an organization but their leadership is doomed to be taken over by residential local leaders whose job descriptions can be written down in details.
In the end, Fr. Chan reminded us to keep in mind Jesus' ministry. He came to serve with love. The ministry of deacons belongs to routine ones. It can be repetitive and boring. However, each subject we serve is different. Therefore, the ministry is not totally routine. With the model of Jesus in mind, Fr. Chan is confident that we can do a good job.
Dear Lord, may Your words be our guiding light and burning fire to keep our compassion for the needy aglow. Amen.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Christain Freedom
Imagine you were Donald Tsang, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR. These days, he was subjected to unprecedented pressure from the public for receiving advantages from tycoon friends. In a Legislative Council meeting, he was drilled mercilessly for more than an hour. He offered an apology for damaging the image of the public servants of Hong Kong, but stopped short of admitting his faults. As a Catholic and having the good habit of going to Church every morning before returning to his office, Donald must feel very much consoled this morning in hearing the reading from the Epistle to the Romans. Let me quote the reading in length.
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies;
who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? (Romans 8:31-34)
Catholics and Christians believe that God has put a conscience in our soul, a small voice within us to tell us the right from wrong and passes judgment on our wrong doings. So, can a Catholic or a Christian appeal to his own conscience to justify his behaviours? Can he ignore public decrial?
Though trained a Pharisee, St. Paul is responsible for playing down the importance of keeping the rituals (Laws) in order to attain justification. The spirit is more important and flexible than the letters, especially because man has a tendency to play safe and interpret the letters of the Law literally. In short, St. Paul advocates Christians' freedom from the Law, because the Spirit is like the wind and blows where it wills. The Holy Spirit is a guarantee of Christian salvation. God puts the Holy Spirit into the hearts of Christians as a down payment for their salvation. Therefore, Christians are men of the Spirit and free from the Law. They only need to listen to the advice from their conscience and act accordingly. God is their judge. You and me are unable to judge whether a Catholic has or has not followed his conscience. Only God knows.
Has Donald been greedy? Is it wrong for him to receive advantages from tycoon friends? I cannot judge because those are his friends. We need an ICAC to collect evidence to prove that those friends have received favouritism in their businesses as a result of their amiable connection with Donald. I can only say that it is imprudent of Donald to receive hospitality in his present position no matter how free he is in Christ. His freedom is not absolute and he must pay a price when he is not prudent enough. If his subordinates are imprisoned for receiving advantages but he is not, then it violates the principle of justice. People demand greater integrity from the man occupying the top job.
Let's return to read more carefully Paul's passage.
If God is for us, who is against us? (Romans 8:31b)
How do you know that God is for you? Simply by being a Catholic or Christian?
Let us read on.
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? (Romans 8:33a)
Are you sure you are God's elect? How do you know you are God's elect? What does it mean to be God's elect? Simply by being baptized as a Catholic or Christian?
I don't think I can provide you with an answer. Search for yourself what "God's elect" means in the Epistle to the Romans. All I can say is that the passage must be read in context.
Even when we read the text out of context, we should remember what God has done for us all.
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all (Romans 8:32a).
We should remember how much God has loved us. Remember what Jesus said in the gospel of John. He is in the Father and the Father is in him (John 17:21). He and his Father are one (John 10:30, 17:11, 22). Therefore, when God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, God Himself was unimaginably involved in this sacrifice. This sacrifice is for all, not just for the elected. So, what about the elected?
The elected are those who have listened to the gospel, repented, made God the core of their life and lead their life accordingly: "Poor in spirit ... mourn ... meek ... hunger for justice ... merciful ... pure in heart ... peace makers ... persecuted ..." (Matthew 5:3-10).
According to the text of the Romans, God will not condemn the elected. Rather, He would justify them, make them blameless. Christ will intercede for them when they suffer. Therefore, if Donald has a clear conscience. Be patient. Keep your hope in Christ. He will pray for you and the Father will justify you.
Dear Lord, I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. May Your mercy uplift me on my feet and proceed ahead. Amen.
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies;
who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? (Romans 8:31-34)
Catholics and Christians believe that God has put a conscience in our soul, a small voice within us to tell us the right from wrong and passes judgment on our wrong doings. So, can a Catholic or a Christian appeal to his own conscience to justify his behaviours? Can he ignore public decrial?
Though trained a Pharisee, St. Paul is responsible for playing down the importance of keeping the rituals (Laws) in order to attain justification. The spirit is more important and flexible than the letters, especially because man has a tendency to play safe and interpret the letters of the Law literally. In short, St. Paul advocates Christians' freedom from the Law, because the Spirit is like the wind and blows where it wills. The Holy Spirit is a guarantee of Christian salvation. God puts the Holy Spirit into the hearts of Christians as a down payment for their salvation. Therefore, Christians are men of the Spirit and free from the Law. They only need to listen to the advice from their conscience and act accordingly. God is their judge. You and me are unable to judge whether a Catholic has or has not followed his conscience. Only God knows.
Has Donald been greedy? Is it wrong for him to receive advantages from tycoon friends? I cannot judge because those are his friends. We need an ICAC to collect evidence to prove that those friends have received favouritism in their businesses as a result of their amiable connection with Donald. I can only say that it is imprudent of Donald to receive hospitality in his present position no matter how free he is in Christ. His freedom is not absolute and he must pay a price when he is not prudent enough. If his subordinates are imprisoned for receiving advantages but he is not, then it violates the principle of justice. People demand greater integrity from the man occupying the top job.
Let's return to read more carefully Paul's passage.
If God is for us, who is against us? (Romans 8:31b)
How do you know that God is for you? Simply by being a Catholic or Christian?
Let us read on.
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? (Romans 8:33a)
Are you sure you are God's elect? How do you know you are God's elect? What does it mean to be God's elect? Simply by being baptized as a Catholic or Christian?
I don't think I can provide you with an answer. Search for yourself what "God's elect" means in the Epistle to the Romans. All I can say is that the passage must be read in context.
Even when we read the text out of context, we should remember what God has done for us all.
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all (Romans 8:32a).
We should remember how much God has loved us. Remember what Jesus said in the gospel of John. He is in the Father and the Father is in him (John 17:21). He and his Father are one (John 10:30, 17:11, 22). Therefore, when God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, God Himself was unimaginably involved in this sacrifice. This sacrifice is for all, not just for the elected. So, what about the elected?
The elected are those who have listened to the gospel, repented, made God the core of their life and lead their life accordingly: "Poor in spirit ... mourn ... meek ... hunger for justice ... merciful ... pure in heart ... peace makers ... persecuted ..." (Matthew 5:3-10).
According to the text of the Romans, God will not condemn the elected. Rather, He would justify them, make them blameless. Christ will intercede for them when they suffer. Therefore, if Donald has a clear conscience. Be patient. Keep your hope in Christ. He will pray for you and the Father will justify you.
Dear Lord, I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. May Your mercy uplift me on my feet and proceed ahead. Amen.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Paul's Christology in the Romans
Christianity is a human phenomenon. Therefore, it can be scientifically analyzed. Historians of religion and social scientists may come to the conclusion that Christianity is an upshot from Judaism. This is true to a certain extent. One will naturally ask what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. Among the many differences in sacred texts, in worship and in institutions, I think the essential difference is their attitude towards the Nazareth carpenter called Jesus. For the Jews, Jesus was at most a Rabbi, a wise teacher. But for the Christians, Jesus is the Son of God incarnated. That is to say, Jesus is their God. But Jesus is also fully human. This is the basic stuff of the branch of theology called Christology --- trying to understand how Jesus is both God and man at the same time.
At the beginning, the greeting section, of his epistle to the members of the Church in Rome, Paul states without ambiguity his Christological position.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3-4).
Jesus is truly human. As a man, he is the seed of David.
Jesus is truly God because of his resurrection from the dead.
These two positions are easily understandable enough. However, what does it mean to be the seed of David? Why did Paul choose to mention David among a long line of ancestors? Before trying to answer these two questions, we need to ascertain who the readers were. What kind of Romans was Paul writing to?
Internal evidence suggests that Paul was writing to the believers of Gentile origins in the Church of Rome. For example,
... that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles (Romans 1:13b).
The word "other" suggests that the readers were gentiles.
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office (Romans 11:13)
This verse is even more direct in showing that the readers were Gentiles.
Still, I have reservation with this conclusion. I feel that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians. For the moment, let us stick to the position of Gentile readership first. Perhaps I will come upon some contrary evidence later.
Now that it is established that the readers were Gentiles, that is non-Jews, what was the significance for these Gentile readers, of choosing David, instead of choosing, say Abraham or Jacob? Having Abraham or Jacob as a representative of all the human ancestors is enough to demonstrate the humanity of Jesus. Why did Paul bother to choose David?
Since the readers were Gentiles, the concept of Messiah might not be meaningful to them. If they were Jewish Christians living in Rome, they would understand that "the seed of David" referred to the Messiah, the God-Chosen One to liberate them from the Roman dominion. The whole epistle would become more political than theological. However, they were not Jews. Therefore, they did not subscribe to the idea of "Messianic Expectation", i.e. to hope that one day, God would send a Messiah to save God's people. But what could a Gentile believer understand from "the seed of David"?
A reasonable, though not spectacular, explanation was that David was a famous Israelite king and Rome was the heart of the Empire. The Romans paid attention to the social status of important personalities. However, this explanation does not stand because Solomon was also a famous Israelite king. Moreover, Solomon was also famous for his wisdom. Why did Paul not choose Solomon? I have no answer because I am not able to find something which David had and Solomon lacked.
I suspect the choice has nothing to do with the readers, but it meant a lot to the author, Paul. The choice reflected the Messianic Expectation of Paul, not of the Roman Christians. As a Pharisee, Paul had once awaited for the coming of the Messiah to liberate the Jews. But the Pharisees and the teachers of Law rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Paul had never met Jesus in person. From his eagerness to persecute the early Christians, he must have shared similar ideology with his fellow Pharisees. But did his conversion experience make Paul acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah? Moreover, Paul must have outgrown the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. He understands that the Messiah is not simply a human being, but God Himself.
Paul had not met Jesus in person. He had not witnesses the feeding miracles, the healing miracles and the exorcisms. The 'only' miracle was the vision of the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, Paul made use of Jesus' resurrection to prove his divinity.
I don't think I have proven satisfactorily enough what it meant to be the "seed of David" to Paul. Deeper reflection is needed.
Dear Lord, You always surprise me. I long to see Your glory. Amen
At the beginning, the greeting section, of his epistle to the members of the Church in Rome, Paul states without ambiguity his Christological position.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3-4).
Jesus is truly human. As a man, he is the seed of David.
Jesus is truly God because of his resurrection from the dead.
These two positions are easily understandable enough. However, what does it mean to be the seed of David? Why did Paul choose to mention David among a long line of ancestors? Before trying to answer these two questions, we need to ascertain who the readers were. What kind of Romans was Paul writing to?
Internal evidence suggests that Paul was writing to the believers of Gentile origins in the Church of Rome. For example,
... that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles (Romans 1:13b).
The word "other" suggests that the readers were gentiles.
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office (Romans 11:13)
This verse is even more direct in showing that the readers were Gentiles.
Still, I have reservation with this conclusion. I feel that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians. For the moment, let us stick to the position of Gentile readership first. Perhaps I will come upon some contrary evidence later.
Now that it is established that the readers were Gentiles, that is non-Jews, what was the significance for these Gentile readers, of choosing David, instead of choosing, say Abraham or Jacob? Having Abraham or Jacob as a representative of all the human ancestors is enough to demonstrate the humanity of Jesus. Why did Paul bother to choose David?
Since the readers were Gentiles, the concept of Messiah might not be meaningful to them. If they were Jewish Christians living in Rome, they would understand that "the seed of David" referred to the Messiah, the God-Chosen One to liberate them from the Roman dominion. The whole epistle would become more political than theological. However, they were not Jews. Therefore, they did not subscribe to the idea of "Messianic Expectation", i.e. to hope that one day, God would send a Messiah to save God's people. But what could a Gentile believer understand from "the seed of David"?
A reasonable, though not spectacular, explanation was that David was a famous Israelite king and Rome was the heart of the Empire. The Romans paid attention to the social status of important personalities. However, this explanation does not stand because Solomon was also a famous Israelite king. Moreover, Solomon was also famous for his wisdom. Why did Paul not choose Solomon? I have no answer because I am not able to find something which David had and Solomon lacked.
I suspect the choice has nothing to do with the readers, but it meant a lot to the author, Paul. The choice reflected the Messianic Expectation of Paul, not of the Roman Christians. As a Pharisee, Paul had once awaited for the coming of the Messiah to liberate the Jews. But the Pharisees and the teachers of Law rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Paul had never met Jesus in person. From his eagerness to persecute the early Christians, he must have shared similar ideology with his fellow Pharisees. But did his conversion experience make Paul acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah? Moreover, Paul must have outgrown the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. He understands that the Messiah is not simply a human being, but God Himself.
Paul had not met Jesus in person. He had not witnesses the feeding miracles, the healing miracles and the exorcisms. The 'only' miracle was the vision of the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, Paul made use of Jesus' resurrection to prove his divinity.
I don't think I have proven satisfactorily enough what it meant to be the "seed of David" to Paul. Deeper reflection is needed.
Dear Lord, You always surprise me. I long to see Your glory. Amen
Thursday, 1 March 2012
What do we mean by calling Jesus Lord?
Paul began his letter by saying, "...separated unto the gospel of God, which ..."
We understand the word "gospel" in two different ways.
First of all, as a text type, gospel was created by Mark to tell the story of Jesus, his words and deeds. It was based on some historical events and written in such a way as to make its readers believe more in Jesus. There can be found a lot of editorial efforts and therefore, we cannot treat it as a kind of "objective", historical biography of Jesus. The Evangelists had put in a lot of their interpretation of the Jesus events. Their narratives were coloured in a particular way.
Secondly, "gospel" literally means "good news". Therefore, the underlying messages of the gospel are good news to the readers. Then, what is so good in particular about the news? Simply put, through the life of Jesus, God reconciles with us sinners. Despite our disobedience, God does not give us up. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to deliver us from the bondage of sins. We were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). However, we do not live up to the standard, to show off the image of God. Jesus came to us to demonstrate to us what an image of God is capable of. Paul was chosen to be a servant of Jesus Christ, to bring the gospel to the Romans.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)
Christians of the first century called Jesus Lord. What did they mean?
The first Christians were Jews. They kept the Ten Commandments one of which forbids calling God's name directly. So, when they came to the tetragrammaton YHWH (pronounced as Yahweh), the 4 alphabets that represent God's name, they would instead pronounce "Adonai", which is "my Lord" in English. Therefore, for the first Christians who were Jews, calling Jesus Lord was equivalent to calling Jesus God. Jesus is their God.
What did it mean to be the God of the Jews?
The Torah emphasizes many times that God has entered into a covenant with them. They are the Chosen People of Yahweh. They are His inheritance. Yahweh has delivered them from a house of slavery into Canaan, the Promised Land. When they follow the Torah to lead their lives, God would show them mercy. Otherwise, God would punish them.
So, unlike deities of other peoples or tribes which could be bribed and made use of to produce fortunes for their worshipers, Yahweh acts in a totally different way. Yahweh wants to be personal. Yahweh wants to enter into long term relations with His people.
Therefore, to be the Lord/God of the first Christians, Jesus must enter into a covenant with them. Moreover, Jesus must deliver them from the slavery of sins and promise them a piece of land etc.
What about modern Christians? When they call Jesus Lord, what do they mean?
Unlike their first century counterparts, modern Christians do not have earthly lords ruling over them. They don't have any example as reference. The word 'Lord' is completely void of meaning for them. Moreover, they are technologically more powerful. They are more assertive and have taken into their own hands a greater portion of their lives. I do not mean they will necessarily be more arrogant. But they will not hesitate to make their voice heard. They will object and complain any "unreasonable" policy of the Church. They want to take over the control of their lives instead of surrendering them to Jesus. Therefore, it is hard to imagine modern Christians submitting to an individual, ho Kyrios. I may even speculate that "The Lord" is merely a title Christians give to Jesus without much thought about its meanings and significance in their life. The title means nothing to them.
I also call Jesus Lord. In most of my concluding prayers, I invoke the Lord instead of calling out for Jesus. Rationally, I know that Jesus can have full control over my life and my destiny. In reality, I seldom let go and always jump at the first opportunity to take control over my own life. I am still a long way behind the stage when I can heartily pray that God's will be done.
Dear Lord, I sincerely offer up my life for You to use. Make me Your handy instrument. Amen.
We understand the word "gospel" in two different ways.
First of all, as a text type, gospel was created by Mark to tell the story of Jesus, his words and deeds. It was based on some historical events and written in such a way as to make its readers believe more in Jesus. There can be found a lot of editorial efforts and therefore, we cannot treat it as a kind of "objective", historical biography of Jesus. The Evangelists had put in a lot of their interpretation of the Jesus events. Their narratives were coloured in a particular way.
Secondly, "gospel" literally means "good news". Therefore, the underlying messages of the gospel are good news to the readers. Then, what is so good in particular about the news? Simply put, through the life of Jesus, God reconciles with us sinners. Despite our disobedience, God does not give us up. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to deliver us from the bondage of sins. We were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). However, we do not live up to the standard, to show off the image of God. Jesus came to us to demonstrate to us what an image of God is capable of. Paul was chosen to be a servant of Jesus Christ, to bring the gospel to the Romans.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)
Christians of the first century called Jesus Lord. What did they mean?
The first Christians were Jews. They kept the Ten Commandments one of which forbids calling God's name directly. So, when they came to the tetragrammaton YHWH (pronounced as Yahweh), the 4 alphabets that represent God's name, they would instead pronounce "Adonai", which is "my Lord" in English. Therefore, for the first Christians who were Jews, calling Jesus Lord was equivalent to calling Jesus God. Jesus is their God.
What did it mean to be the God of the Jews?
The Torah emphasizes many times that God has entered into a covenant with them. They are the Chosen People of Yahweh. They are His inheritance. Yahweh has delivered them from a house of slavery into Canaan, the Promised Land. When they follow the Torah to lead their lives, God would show them mercy. Otherwise, God would punish them.
So, unlike deities of other peoples or tribes which could be bribed and made use of to produce fortunes for their worshipers, Yahweh acts in a totally different way. Yahweh wants to be personal. Yahweh wants to enter into long term relations with His people.
Therefore, to be the Lord/God of the first Christians, Jesus must enter into a covenant with them. Moreover, Jesus must deliver them from the slavery of sins and promise them a piece of land etc.
What about modern Christians? When they call Jesus Lord, what do they mean?
Unlike their first century counterparts, modern Christians do not have earthly lords ruling over them. They don't have any example as reference. The word 'Lord' is completely void of meaning for them. Moreover, they are technologically more powerful. They are more assertive and have taken into their own hands a greater portion of their lives. I do not mean they will necessarily be more arrogant. But they will not hesitate to make their voice heard. They will object and complain any "unreasonable" policy of the Church. They want to take over the control of their lives instead of surrendering them to Jesus. Therefore, it is hard to imagine modern Christians submitting to an individual, ho Kyrios. I may even speculate that "The Lord" is merely a title Christians give to Jesus without much thought about its meanings and significance in their life. The title means nothing to them.
I also call Jesus Lord. In most of my concluding prayers, I invoke the Lord instead of calling out for Jesus. Rationally, I know that Jesus can have full control over my life and my destiny. In reality, I seldom let go and always jump at the first opportunity to take control over my own life. I am still a long way behind the stage when I can heartily pray that God's will be done.
Dear Lord, I sincerely offer up my life for You to use. Make me Your handy instrument. Amen.
The authority of the Old Testament
We have the impression that Paul and Peter had agreed on a division of labour: Paul preached to the Gentiles and Peter the Jews. This impression is wrong because Peter was sent by God to preach in the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion even before Paul began his missionary journeys (Acts 10). In fact, Paul preached to the Jews as well. It was only after the Jews rejected him that Paul turned to the Gentiles. Therefore, such a clear-cut division is not warranted.
Similarly, we have the impression that the church in Jerusalem was a purely Jewish Christian church whereas the churches surrounding the Mediterranean Sea must have been purely Gentile churches in the sense that all the members were Gentiles. Again, this impression is unwarranted. First of all, when I read the epistles of Paul to the Gentile churches, I am always puzzled by his quoting of the Jewish scriptures. I wonder if the Gentiles knew anything about these sacred texts. Put it in another way, how much authority did the Jewish scriptures enjoy in the hearts of the Gentile members of the churches to which Paul wrote? The only reasonable explanation is that most churches Paul established and wrote to were mixed. They must have both Jews and Gentiles as their members. The situation in Rome was definitely a mixed one because Rome was the heart of the Empire. Rome must have been a cosmopolitan city in which peoples of different nationalities mixed and did their business. The church in Rome must have Jewish Christians. However, their proportion is difficult to determine.
Return to the Epistle of the Romans, the following verse makes sense.
Which (the gospel) he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures (Romans 1:2).
The readers of this letter must have some knowledge of the Jewish culture, knowing that there were holy scriptures as well as prophets. Yet, they were converted from Judaism to Christianity. The situation might not be too impossible. Weren't Jesus' disciples Jews?
What is so important about these prophets and scriptures? As an ex-Pharisee, Paul himself must be very knowledgeable about the Jewish scriptures. Moreover, after the Damascus experience, Paul must have arrived at a newer understanding of the scriptures he had known. He was able to see the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Jewish scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament. The New Testament has its roots planted in the Old Testament.
"... holy scriptures" is a translation of γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, which literally means "holy writings". What does that mean to us, modern readers? Writings which in themselves are holy or writings which make the readers holy, or both?
Modern people tend to dismiss myths and magic. They think that it is superstitious to believe that words/writings possess supernatural powers beyond the ordinary functions of transmitting messages. We have lost the sense of awe which gripped the minds of ancient Israelites. In Genesis, God created the known universe with His Words alone. He did not rely on other materials. He simply called into existence all the things in the cosmo. Modern men may simply dismiss it as a myth. Perhaps they should think twice. Maybe God's words are truly powerful. It is only they who have lost touch with the powers/potentials of words/writings. Maybe our hearts have been so hardened that we refuse to be touched and be transformed. The possibility be sanctification is still there.
Worst still, throughout history, there have been people who even tried to mutilate the Bible to box it into their conceptions of God, their theology. Instead of humbly admitting their ignorance and limited intellect in understanding God's grand plan, some theologians simply removed some books from the canon. For example, Marcion was one such heretic. He rejected the "blood-thirsty" Yahweh in the Jewish scriptures because this Yahweh was totally different from the merciful Father Jesus preached. He rejected the whole of Old Testament and did not regard it as God inspired. Martin Luther wanted to root out the theological basis of selling indulgences. So he removed from the Old Testament 7 books (or parts of a book) which only have Greek texts but not Hebrew texts. Actually, the only "offending" book was 2 Maccabees in which only one "offending" verse was found. The other six books are disqualified simply because like 2 Maccabees, they happened to be written in Greek only. These theologians had forgotten Paul's teachings or rather, they selectively chose Paul's teachings which suited their agenda and ignored the bigger picture.
In conclusion, according to Paul, the holy scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, are closely related to the New Testament. They are inseparable and they shed light on each other so that we have a better understanding of the grand design of God.
Dear Lord, You are the master of human history. You are eternal, yet You enter into our history in order to bring us new life. We thank you. May Your will be done on earth and in our history as in heaven. Amen.
Similarly, we have the impression that the church in Jerusalem was a purely Jewish Christian church whereas the churches surrounding the Mediterranean Sea must have been purely Gentile churches in the sense that all the members were Gentiles. Again, this impression is unwarranted. First of all, when I read the epistles of Paul to the Gentile churches, I am always puzzled by his quoting of the Jewish scriptures. I wonder if the Gentiles knew anything about these sacred texts. Put it in another way, how much authority did the Jewish scriptures enjoy in the hearts of the Gentile members of the churches to which Paul wrote? The only reasonable explanation is that most churches Paul established and wrote to were mixed. They must have both Jews and Gentiles as their members. The situation in Rome was definitely a mixed one because Rome was the heart of the Empire. Rome must have been a cosmopolitan city in which peoples of different nationalities mixed and did their business. The church in Rome must have Jewish Christians. However, their proportion is difficult to determine.
Return to the Epistle of the Romans, the following verse makes sense.
Which (the gospel) he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures (Romans 1:2).
The readers of this letter must have some knowledge of the Jewish culture, knowing that there were holy scriptures as well as prophets. Yet, they were converted from Judaism to Christianity. The situation might not be too impossible. Weren't Jesus' disciples Jews?
What is so important about these prophets and scriptures? As an ex-Pharisee, Paul himself must be very knowledgeable about the Jewish scriptures. Moreover, after the Damascus experience, Paul must have arrived at a newer understanding of the scriptures he had known. He was able to see the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Jewish scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament. The New Testament has its roots planted in the Old Testament.
"... holy scriptures" is a translation of γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, which literally means "holy writings". What does that mean to us, modern readers? Writings which in themselves are holy or writings which make the readers holy, or both?
Modern people tend to dismiss myths and magic. They think that it is superstitious to believe that words/writings possess supernatural powers beyond the ordinary functions of transmitting messages. We have lost the sense of awe which gripped the minds of ancient Israelites. In Genesis, God created the known universe with His Words alone. He did not rely on other materials. He simply called into existence all the things in the cosmo. Modern men may simply dismiss it as a myth. Perhaps they should think twice. Maybe God's words are truly powerful. It is only they who have lost touch with the powers/potentials of words/writings. Maybe our hearts have been so hardened that we refuse to be touched and be transformed. The possibility be sanctification is still there.
Worst still, throughout history, there have been people who even tried to mutilate the Bible to box it into their conceptions of God, their theology. Instead of humbly admitting their ignorance and limited intellect in understanding God's grand plan, some theologians simply removed some books from the canon. For example, Marcion was one such heretic. He rejected the "blood-thirsty" Yahweh in the Jewish scriptures because this Yahweh was totally different from the merciful Father Jesus preached. He rejected the whole of Old Testament and did not regard it as God inspired. Martin Luther wanted to root out the theological basis of selling indulgences. So he removed from the Old Testament 7 books (or parts of a book) which only have Greek texts but not Hebrew texts. Actually, the only "offending" book was 2 Maccabees in which only one "offending" verse was found. The other six books are disqualified simply because like 2 Maccabees, they happened to be written in Greek only. These theologians had forgotten Paul's teachings or rather, they selectively chose Paul's teachings which suited their agenda and ignored the bigger picture.
In conclusion, according to Paul, the holy scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, are closely related to the New Testament. They are inseparable and they shed light on each other so that we have a better understanding of the grand design of God.
Dear Lord, You are the master of human history. You are eternal, yet You enter into our history in order to bring us new life. We thank you. May Your will be done on earth and in our history as in heaven. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)