Pistis Patis Please (be right)

Without question, the subjective vs. objective genitive debate over the phrase, “the faith of Jesus (Christ)” has been the hardest concept within Romans for me to wrap my head around thus far.  I honestly struggle with the fact that anything that we do can have any kind of impact AT ALL on God’s righteousness.  (Like He needs us to “be” how He is and always has been and always will be.)  However, that said, obviously the study is important even though it has been equally as interesting as it has been frustrating!...

First, it is important to note than when considering the different options for the phrase in Romans 3:21-26, the discovery and decision will both have a direct impact on and be directly impacted by the phrase “the righteousness of God” found in 1:16.  According to the lecture it will “determine the means of disclosure of the righteousness of God,” and further, determine the means whereby God presents Jesus as the sacrifice of atonement as well as determine the identity of those who are considered to be justified as a result of the demonstration of God’s righteousness; i.e. who is the center of activity in befitting the benefits that come as a result of the righteousness of God?  Is it the believer who models faith in Jesus as God’s mechanism of salvation?  Or, is it Jesus, who demonstrates obedient faithfulness by giving Himself over to die?

Pistis Christou as an objective genitive means “faith in [Jesus] Christ,” while Pistis Christou as a subjective genitive means “the faithfulness of [Jesus] Christ.”  The entire passage of 3:21-26 hinges on this distinction.  Just like the word “of” was ambiguous in the phrase “the righteousness of God,” so too is there ambiguity surrounding “the faith of/in Jesus.”  Is Jesus the subject of the object of the phrase?  If the former, then the faith is that which Christ himself displayed through his own loyalty and obedience in dying on the cross.  If the latter, then the faith is that which believers put in Christ (the most typical understanding of the phrase).  Again, the distinction is important.  Both interpretations have vastly different trajectories in terms of the understanding of how salvation occurs. 

In theoretical terms, the two are not mutually exclusive; that is, even if Jesus is the subject of the faith in the passage, then it is still God and what He has accomplished towards the end goal of salvation through Jesus as the object of believer’s belief.  Alternately, if Jesus is the object of the phrase, it does not negate Jesus’ obedience in being crucified.  There is nothing happening here which can happen without Jesus, regardless of anything we are a part of, whether that be in action or in belief.

Rather, in both versions, the action of God is fundamental.  The difference, however, is whether the gift of salvation is apportioned in response to the human trust or in response to Jesus and His true faithfulness.  Moreover, it is a question of how God understands the transaction to occur; neither necessarily expels Jesus from the keystone of divine activity because again, no Jesus, no salvation, no anything.  So I repeat: it is not our actions or understandings that have a bearing on God’s righteousness or Jesus’ faithfulness – it is God’s.

That said, with regard to verses 3:21-22, it is the “through” phrases which bring the Christological focus of the gospel of God (1:2-4) into a clearer light.  God’s righteousness is made manifest through putting faith in [Jesus] Christ – meaning, all who believe.  This requires that “all” believers then, participate in the faithful action of Jesus and in so doing, enter into a fused relationship whereby the believer’s identity is wholly found in Christ.  While participation from believers is part of the responsibility (works?) associated with the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God is righteous nonetheless.

As crystal clear as this study is (whew), I tend to land right back where I started.  “The faithfulness of Jesus” cannot be disputed.  Jesus absolutely was faithful in His every act, in His very being (faithfulness of), and we (believers) absolutely put faith in Him – in His loyalty and faithfulness.

Perhaps it is our relationship with Jesus that is more paramount for being non-mutually exclusive than two little words.  The relationship is ineffable. 

A Response.

Ok so by now you've realized I am literally posting answers to weekly assignments due for the current class de jour, Romans.  It is an intense 7-week class, rifled with readings and cross-references and Scripture verses and Paul and themes and...yowzers.  Brain-wracking stuff.  But I like non-stop, I crave and devour learning new things, and I am honestly trying to understand what God expects of us so I no longer make the dumb ass mistakes I've made for oh, roughly 42 years, 1 month, and 16 days.

Below is my submission to the last part of question 2 of 3, all due Thursday by 11:59pm.  This one made me cringe.  Mostly, because it's questioning "the law" and I (zip it, those of you who will suddenly let out a "Nah...Really?") immediately realized that I HATE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO.  When I respect you, when I've known you for a while, when we are officially friends - I will welcome your kind advice with open arms instead of an iron clad fist.  But lead with telling me what to do and it's all over.  Once, in the midst of my dating debacles, I remember receiving a text which read, "Such and such and address, 7:30, dress to impress!"  It took me all of half a nanosecond to realize he was an idiot and I am a (sometimes) bitch who has had her fill of idiots.  So, I text Chels: 

Can you believe this?  I am seriously vacillating between showing up in sweats or showing up in a leather dress and 5" heels.  What do you think?

What the f*k does vacillating mean?

And there you have it.  Our covenant relationship.

----------------------------

2C.  Paul clarifies the effects of original sin and the issue of whether or not individuals are recipients of the law by stating that “All who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12-13). Regardless of ethnicity, Paul is establishing that all men stand condemned before God – whether they have the law or not.  Once he discusses the Gentiles who are not in possession of the law but who keep the requirement of the law, the idea of “heart circumcision” is introduced (2:25).  By keeping the requirement of the law, the Gentiles are showing that the law is “written on their hearts” (2:15), i.e. that they too have the essence of God’s legal requirements already ingrained and as such, are just as much without excuse as the Jews who possess the law.  A basic sense of “moral” custom is the take away here, whereas Paul also denotes deeds prescribed by the Mosaic Law to define “works of the Law” (2:15; 3:20; 3:27; 3:28; cf. Gal. 2:16, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10).

What is distinctive about the phrase “the works of the Law” is the complexity surrounding how those works are done, or if they even are.  Meaning, what is Paul's exact point and end goal here?  His claim in 3:20 that “no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law” is seemingly a big deal, and one that must be explored further.  In the quest of further exploration, Blackwell tells us that consulting the only other Jewish text outside the Pauline corpus – 4QMMT, or the six Dead Sea Scrolls found beside Qumran (4Q394-4Q399) – is smart discovery work.[1]   When combining the Scrolls, the single text restored essentially states that some works of the law are beneficial to the recipients and it will be reckoned to them as righteousness when they do what is upright and good in God’s presence, for the good of themselves and Israel (SC 26-32, summarized).

One way to reconcile the text’s “works of the law” is to view it as a summary for the instructions found in its interpretative comments section which deals with some of the commandments in the Torah – specifically twenty-four different commandments that also include the community’s (recipients) own view about how these rules of behavior are to be applied.  However, another way to understand “the works of the law” may be in its reference to observing the Torah, whereby the focus is not on the application of behavior according to the Torah, but rather on the individual human agent obeying what the Torah commands.[2]

While the distinctions are ambiguous at best and mind-boggling at worst, the bottom line seems to be that by “the works of the law,” Paul meant it as a reference to the works required by the law grounded in the overall purpose of the letter, which is to motivate the readers to do certain things – the “works of the law” are to be observed[3].  And…be observed.

This matters in so far as how whatever needs to be done in observing the works of the law equates to righteousness.  Because ambiguity again reigns with regard to Paul’s sense of linking righteousness with something (i.e. faith, etc.), he draws on a modification of a scriptural claim found in Ps. 143:2:  “for no one living is righteous before you” to serve his purpose of defining this as best we may understand.  In comparison with God, no one is righteous and by the attachment of “by the works of the law,” Paul shifts the focus so the declaration accentuates the means by which a person cannot become righteous before God. 

All this to say (I think) - while the law is an absolute, a guideline, a clear message from God, “doing” the law won’t make you righteous before God; if they (we) are to be righteous (referring to a mode of relationship to the Law set in contrast to faith in Christ), we cannot use “works” in the sense of striving for self-achievement apart from God.  Observance of the Mosaic Law was more a response to a gracious God in order to demonstrate the individual’s covenant relationship. 

The same holds true today for those of us not under Mosaic Law – we should want to observe certain “rules” or “laws” in response to our love of someone with whom we are in relationship.  But not everyone who does something for us will we enter into relationship.  Relationships are a matter of the heart (2:15), and none is more profound in meaning yet simple at its core than what Paul is teaching here.  An outpouring of love and observance of the law is shown in response to how we feel about God.  Once we know – absolutely know with unwavering certainty – how we feel about Him, then our actions align and those resultant works which we do are in response to that unbreakable, solid bond demonstrating to all that we believe in a covenant relationship.  A love stated but followed up with inaction is fooling no one, least of all God who knows all.

---

[1] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Pgs 52-53. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015.

[2] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 54. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015. 

[3] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 54. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015.

"Therefore."

2A. The relationship between Romans 2:1-3:8 to what precedes it in Romans 1:18-32 is as follows:  1:18-32 is Paul’s description of the Gentiles dilemma and indictment with regard to their evil ways (i.e. lack of glorification and thanks to God, idolatry, sinful desires of the heart, shameful lusts, envy, arrogance, on and on…), while 2:1-3:8 is the confrontation by Paul of said things.  A confrontational diatribe to whom?  That is the question.  Paul seemingly turns his discourse in 2:1 to the Jews, although I believe it is again his brilliant writing style under the clichéd heading of “two birds with one stone.”  Keck states that “Paul does not implicitly turn to the situation of the Jew in 2:1 (as many still hold); rather, 2:1 clearly continues the indictment of Gentiles in 1:18-32.”[1]  Further, Keck goes on to say while that is clear, Paul also does it from a different perspective (hence, brilliant writing style).  Both the Jews and Gentiles would have felt the ‘sting’ of the accusation (“you are without excuse”), regardless of whether the Greek  second person singular “you” was being directed at a hypothetical interlocutor or one of them.  However, here is the problem with the latter:  God’s impartiality.  Paul reasons that if God’s impartiality punishes evil deeds, then His impartiality also rewards good deeds as well, whether done by Jews or Gentiles.[2]  The baseline significance of God’s impartiality is further illustrated by its discussion between 1:18-32 and 2:1-3:8 – as Paul lists examples of sinful indictments, 1:25 would have specifically resonated with the Jews (cf. Jer 10:14), leading me to believe the list in and of itself was impartial – all were guilty; all would be culpable to God’s wrath.  The usage and force of “therefore” in 2:1 further drives home the point.  The description just given in preceding verses of the state of one group of the human race contains inherently the condemnation of the other, for it is equally applicable to both.  By saying “You, therefore,” Paul guides the discussion toward the theme of accountability.  Everyone is accountable; everyone has no excuse because “in passing judgment on someone else,” he is effectively condemning himself, since you (the judge) are doing the very same things.[3]

2B. I believe the point in which Paul addresses a Jewish audience in Chapter 2 is at verse 17.  I believe he reminds a Jewish audience beginning at verse 1 (although he was primarily addressing the Gentiles in 2:1-16).  The significance of where Paul begins addressing the Jews is two-fold:  one, he is reiterating accountability and alerts his listeners via the same means of “calling them out” just as he did in earlier verses with the Gentiles.  By stating “if you call yourself a Jew” as opposed to “if you are a Jew,” Paul is perhaps suggesting that their self-image does not align with reality.[4]  He is attacking their hypocrisy, if you will.  This direct address by Paul to them links back to the reminder in 2:1-16 that he knows they thought themselves a holy and privileged people by right and entitlement, all the while they were unthankful, rebellious, and unrighteous.  Secondly, the significance of addressing a Jewish audience beginning in 2:17 is with regard to the law.  Paul is letting them know that the Jew who is imperious with his knowledge of God (2:17-29) will be regarded as uncircumcised (2:26-27) and that this whole “impartial judging” is really, a matter of the heart (cf. Deut. 30:1-6).  As Keck summarizes, there is no veritable distinction because while each people group reacts or misses the mark in a particular way that is different from the other, similarities within the original offense abound, i.e. “Both the Gentile ‘judge’ and the Jewish ‘teacher’ do what each rejects (cf. 2:1-2, 2:21-22); the Gentile thinks he can escape God’s judgment (2:3) and the Jew does not teach himself what he teaches others (2:21) because he assumes he does not need to.”[5]

And I will just add for context:  I wrote this hours ago.

---

[1] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 74.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

[2] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 74.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

[3] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 75.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

[4] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 83.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

[5] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 88.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005

Bueller, Bueller...no not him.

1A.   There are varying options for the meaning of the phrase “the righteousness of God” primarily because the complexity of Paul’s thought is monumental. (Could you imagine dating the guy?  I digress, but I’m starting to understand why he was single.)  Before Paul becomes baffling with all the grammarian stumping, he starts out by saying he is not ashamed of the gospel (1:16).  I think he purposely begins with bottom line before he unpacks the depth of his message, so as not to lose his audience and, and as Keck points out, to say that he has “full confidence in the gospel.”[1]

The difficulty of confidently defining “the righteousness of God” stems from language, word tense, and the basic “senses” of underlying intent and meanings behind them.  English was always my favorite subject; however, upon submitting a writing piece, I always stressed over the grading subjectivity.  That’s what we have here:  objective vs. subjective genitives.  Is the interpretation to be understood in the so-called objective sense, i.e. the righteousness which is valid before God?  Or, is it to be interpreted as a subjective genitive, referring either to God’s own action (God acts justly) or His own righteousness describing his being (He is righteous)? 

According to Wright’s article, there are two very different English roots which are frequently used to translate the same Greek root – Dikaios means ‘righteous,’ but it also means ‘just.’ Dikaiosune means ‘righteousness,’ but it also means ‘justice.’ Jewish tradition of the interpretation of “the righteousness of God” would lend itself to a subjective genitive since, to the Hebrew mind, the concept of righteousness emphasizes the relational aspect of God and His people in the context of a covenant.  “The Gentiles would be blessed, according to the particular Jewish hope that Paul seems to have cherished, when and only when Israel’s God fulfilled his promises to, and purposes for, Israel.”[2]   It was the completion of actionable items (covenant fulfillment) from which they understood God’s righteousness to come.

B.  Again, having “full confidence in the gospel” (1:16), I believe Paul was using the phrase “the righteousness of God” to describe a plethora of righteousness.  As much of a stretch as this may be, when Wright asserts that translating the phrase is like “translating poetry,”[3] I think Paul is the greatest poet of all time.  While he was writing in Greek, he had full understanding of the Old Testament.  His mind was like a steel trap.  He had been through experiences (i.e. chapters in his life which would equate to later chapters [epistles] in his writing) that most of his audiences could never fathom, much less truly understand.  Therefore, the great mind of Paul was perhaps declaring righteousness as a multitude of things to reach a multitude of people:  as a gift (5:17, 21), of faith (4:11, 13-14), of obedience (6:13, 18-20).   That belief has shaped my understanding of what is being revealed (1:17) – it is through the gospel that God works to take His people from death to life.  The gospel is God’s power, i.e. communication to and with us, in realizing salvation.  And since we all have our own unique experiences and life chapters, that communication is individualized to us by a God who is and “does” a fascicle of righteousness.

The “good news” about the “righteousness of God” is as multifaceted as Paul.  While the bottom line good news is salvation realized, the (Roman? - pun intended) road to get there is traveled by a broken mess of people, all of whom hear and learn and understand differently.  Whether subjective or objective in its interpretation, we can understand God’s righteousness to mean a beautiful reciprocity in our relationship with Him – we can count on Him to be “right” and “just” as He has always been and will always be, and we can count on our desire to be more “right” and “just” before Him as validity that we are growing in our understanding of this arrangement and His ultimate power in the gospel.

---

[1] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 50.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

[2] Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Page 95.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

[3] Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Page 96.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

 

You're killin' me, Paul.

As I continue to immerse myself in the Book of Romans (among other things that make me sweat and feel physical pain instead of that other kind), my brain hurts. 

There is other good news in addition to the gospel good news.  I learned how to wash my hair when my noodle-like arms cannot bear to be lifted an hour after boxing.

3.       Paul wrote to a church in Rome that was experiencing a time of relative peace, yet they were a people and a church that he felt needed a healthy dose of basic gospel doctrine.  Communicating with what appears to be a firmly established collection of believer in Rome, according to Keck, Paul was writing from a port near Corinth (16:1) and was at a pivotal juncture in his mission (15:19-23).  Further, he was on the cusp of concluding his work in the East and being freed for his outright new venture to Spain.[1]  Near Corinth, Paul likely encountered a diverse array of people and practices—from rough and tough sailors and conscionable merchants to affluent idolaters and enslaved Christians.  The city was like modern day Vegas; it was a hotbed of sexual immorality, idol worship and downright gross and unrighteous behavior.  So when Paul wrote all about the sinfulness of humanity and the solution to it in God’s grace (5:1-19; 6:1), he knew that of which he spoke as he was witnessing it first-hand daily. 

Paul had made acquaintances with pretty much all circumstances of the Christians at Rome and found that it was in desperate need of attention.  While it is possible that there were both pagan converts and Jews who, with remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah in Rome, it is perhaps more plausible that the audience was entirely Gentile.  The former possibility is perhaps explained by the contentious dynamic created by the gentile claims of equal privileges with the Jews and said Jews who said, “no way” unless the gentile converts became circumcised (2:27).  Paul could have been writing to the collective in Rome to adjust preconceptions and settle these differences.  However, as the reconstruction of Das so persuasively states, “Paul directly addresses his audience in Romans 15:15-16 and boldly justifies his writing to ‘you’ Romans because of his calling as a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles.”  According to Das, the logic in those verses through verse 18 repeatedly assume that the Romans are themselves Gentiles and thus, the rightful recipients of Paul’s ministry.[2] 

I found the reconstruction ridiculously compelling, to the point my head is now spinning from picturing the intended audience of Romans devoid of a single Jew.

4.       Chapters 1-4 of Romans encompasses Paul’s initial case-building that the entire world is guilty before God, yet the primary role of humanity is to be worshippers (i.e. foundation for ministry), sharing the gospel and teaching that our righteousness comes only by faith in Jesus Christ apart from anything we can do to earn it. Chapters 5-8 are instrumental in teaching that we are completely reconciled with God through Jesus and they also addresses our spiritual lives.  We are freed from sin and made alive through Jesus, as our sin natures were crucified with him when we were baptized into his death.  Romans 9-11 deals with a final assurance from Paul that God’s purposes in redemption (of Israel, the world) will be accomplished; Chapters 12-15 is a charge and encouragement for us in how we should be living today - through faith, as forgiven believers.  It a conclusion for the unity of a body of believers.

In Keck’s intro, the setting and purpose of Roman’s is one if the key themes mentioned.  Without question, this will be the most challenging to my current understanding of the book, as I always read through the two-fold questioning lens of “to whom is the author writing” (my jury is still officially out) and “what message is the author trying to convey.”  Because I have not yet landed on those final answers, it is going to be the most time intensive part of this study.  Keck surmises that “most” of the people in Rome were Gentiles (p.30) and that Paul was writing to garner support for his next mission to Spain, but he could not count on it if everyone was squabbling over legalistic issues, and he knew full well that those issues were caused at the core by a lack of understanding the gospel.  Work needed to be done there before work could be done elsewhere.

From a theological perspective, Keck also explains that another key theme is the role of Scripture in Romans.  The difficulty I may have with this theme is as Keck states: it is unevenly distributed throughout the book (I am a bigger fan of consistency, black and white, inclusios, neat and tidy formats…) but noticeably prominent in the early chapters (1-4) and the seemingly most difficult chapters, 9-11.  As also stated, “Paul rewords the text and uses various versions to ‘fit’ his points better.”[3]  That creative license with which Paul takes liberties is sometimes not the most conducive to quick and easy understanding.  Finally, “because Paul does not read scripture in light of the historical circumstances in which it was written, his interpretive moves often appear arbitrary to those who simply assume that every text must be read in light of its historical context.  Following Paul’s theologizing by means of scripture may well be as much of a challenge as understanding his ideas.”[4]

And all God’s people said, “Amen, Keck.”  Seriously.

---

[1] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 30.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

 

[2] Das, A. Andrew.  Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Das: The Gentile-Encoded Audience of Romans.  Pages 32-33.  Print.

[3] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 38.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

 

[4] Keck, Leander E.  Romans.  Page 30.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2005.

 

 

No Sleep Till...7 weeks.

Wanna know the central theme of Romans and why Paul wrote to them?  (Right answer...we are totally going to get an A less the minus in this class...) 

The primary theme running through Paul’s letter to the Romans is the revelation of God’s righteousness in His plan for salvation (faith), a/k/a the gospel.  “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16–17).

Paul showed how human beings lack God’s righteousness because of our sin (1–3), receive God’s righteousness when God justifies us by faith (4–5), demonstrate God’s righteousness by being transformed from rebels to followers (6–8), confirm His righteousness when God saves the Jews (9–11), and apply His righteousness in practical ways throughout our lives (12–16).

At the core of Romans is Paul’s basic gospel message dealing with the misconceptions and heresies of Judaism.  Paul shows that all (Judeans and gentiles alike) fall short of the glory of God, and that in order to be saved from their sin and condemnation, all are in need of a righteousness not their own.  Many of the Jews even believed they possessed salvation solely on the basis of being Abraham’s descendant, a la “saved by association.”  Beyond this, the Jews also thought they determined who was eligible for salvation because they owned it, i.e. they shared salvation only with those willing to become Jewish converts before the coming of Christ, and when these proselytes converted to Judaism, they had to be circumcised and willingly put themselves under the Law of Moses.  With the coming of Christ, Christianity was completely rejected by many of the Jews.  They didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah, and further, they opposed the preaching of Jesus as the Messiah even to the Gentiles.  The Jews who converted to Christianity wanted to acquire ownership and control just like they had done in Judaism.  These Jews insisted that to be saved, Gentiles needed not only to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but they must be circumcised and keep the Law. 

To the Jews, Abraham was their father; they were his chosen sons.  Paul is doing some serious correcting in Romans 4 – he not only shows the Jews that they’re mistaken concerning the righteousness of Abraham, he also shows that Abraham was justified by faith (apart from works) and that is the “father” of all who believe, Judeans and gentile alike.  Abraham’s righteousness is the exact same kind of righteousness that God has made available to us on the same basis.

Abraham was justified by faith alone, apart from works (4:1-8), and he was justified by this faith as an uncircumcised gentile (4:9-17).  Finally, Abraham’s resurrection faith (4:17-25) is just like that which is required today – the promises God makes are unwaveringly certain.  God can “give life to the dead and call into existence the things that do not exist,” just as he did with Abraham and Sarah who were the dead ones in the sense that they could no produce life (4:19; Heb. 11:11-12), yet out of the deadness of Sarah’s womb He brought forth life.  Later, when Abraham was told to kill his only son, he knew that God would bring back his dead son to life because he knew God must keep His promise (Heb. 11:17-19; cf. Gen. 22:5).  Paul’s gospel teaches us that true faith is always fixed upon God’s Word (Rom. 10:17), and we must have faith…true faith in what the Word says, as Abraham certainly did.

According to Grieb, Paul wrote to the church at Rome for eight reasons[1] - to introduce himself and his theology (especially his controversial gospel that excluded the law for Gentile converts); to correct false impressions about what he taught; to reassure the Jewish Christians of Israel’s priority and irrevocability of God’s covenant with it; to reassure the Gentile Christians of God’s impartiality and that they were included under God’s covenant promises as well; to urge Roman Christians to stop fighting over stupid stuff and live together in harmony, albeit with diversity; to recommend Phoebe as a helper and part of the important mission ahead; to start laying the foundation to build Roman house churches so they could become the base of operations he would need for his impending mission to Spain and…”above all, Paul wrote to proclaim the gospel of God to them.”

---

[1] Grieb Katherine A.  The Story of Romans.  Pages 14-15.  Louisville: London:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2002

It Doesn't Even Matter that I'm Italian...

Because when you are in a Master's Program trying to frantically remember how any human being can read this.much.stuff in any kind of time-  let alone 7 short weeks when real life doesn't slow down - nationality doesn't matter.

And the one thing I do know with certainty is that Paul was definitely not Italian.

Question 1 of 4 due in like, oh, 27 hours:  Your personal encounter with Romans.  (Note: these are all just the "easy" weekly on-line postings that will comprise 70% of our total grade.  I saw someone's first posting and it was about a sentence.  Rookie.)

1.      Admittedly, to date my personal encounter with Romans has been a moving target.  Initially as I  read the narrative, my conclusions and overall understanding centered solely on presuppositions including but not limited to: my Catholic upbringing, study-style, and preferred methodology of reading, i.e. whatever I could apply to my life in the moment.  Therefore, with that somewhat sophomoric approach, there was nothing “special” in terms of take-a-ways in my encounter with the epistle, and certainly nothing revolutionary.   

In question is, has there in fact been a shift from reading Paul’s letter as a compilation or compendium of Christian doctrine from/to reading it as one of his thirteen or fourteen (cf. Hebrews) epistles which address situational issues to its intended recipients at the time of its writing?  Much like Paul rhetorically asks in 10:19 (“Did Israel not understand?”) and textual evidence strongly suggests that they did[1], my personal encounter with life suggests that I should, at a minimum understand Romans to be a treatise of Christian doctrine and at a maximum, dig deeper into understanding Paul the missionary and teacher as he instructs the Judeans and gentiles among the house churches of Rome. (gentiles not capitalized for a reason - more on that and the regions of Israel later).

I am a fan of Paul’s strong rhetorical rhetoric throughout the book, as its usage interrupts his own narrative on more than one occasion (ex.11:1-6).  Equally as much, I also enjoy Paul’s interjection of himself into an argument (ex.10:1-4).  However as I reflect further, my personal encounter can perhaps best be summarized by stating what fully resonates every time I read Romans and begin to further comprehend the beautiful unfolding of events –  that is, the way in which Paul bares his soul through irony and pain masterfully revealing to us – a timeless us – the unconditional covenant love God has for His collective people. (9:1-11:36)

 

My answer concluded with the above, as I thought it slightly irrelevant that in every scholarly text written about Romans it says that Chapters 9-11 are um, hard to figure out. Dr. McCabe probably doesn't care when I was born. 

"Romans 9-11 remains one of the most difficult and contested biblical texts..."

---

[1] Grieb Katherine A.  The Story of Romans.  Page 105.  Louisville: London:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. 

AlphaLimaWhiskeyAlpha...

I have learned so much this week my head is near exploding.  Sometimes a week is filled with one main theme, or one thing in which we were busiest or made the most progress.  We can look back on a Friday afternoon as we count down the minutes until 5 o’clock and go, “Man, I ran like Usain this week!” or “Man, thank goodness that project is finally complete.”

Well, this week – as in hello today is only Wednesday – my entire body has caffeine shakes over the amount of sh*t I don’t have room to even fathom, let alone process.

Monday morning, 4:10am:  alarm, sigh and eye roll, out the door to run.  Badly, but the temperature was glorious and I was alone and felt empowered in the swearing at and shutting off of my watch.  Take that, you innate object that can’t talk back.  I win.

By 7:00am I was showered and out the door, ready to jump into the crazy world of work.  However before the house alarm was even set, my phone was lighting up as if it sixth-sensed an intruder.

Call me plz about a personal issue.

Two things:  I am a grammarian and shortcutting even in texts drives me insane, and personal issue?  Probably not the best person in your phone’s contacts to ask.  I haven’t heard from this person in almost a year, so my gut that I rarely listen to but is usually right told my stupid head that it was probably because said person was about to inquire about a divorce.

Yep.  Again, clearly not the resident expert on how to avoid. 

Yet because we have hometown ties, because I hate to let anyone down, because I am GASP! nice and compassionate and hate to see people hurt, I responded.  And, I think maybe even helped.  (Don’t divorce, valiant efforts, lots of counseling, even more prayer…we’ll see.  Or actually if my prayers are answered, I won’t see.)

Therein formed the theme of my week, all three fully completed days.

Yesterday as I was in the middle of working and reworking and thinking about how to handle an ongoing account, I received an email from Angela.  Her emails always cause me to stop whatever I’m doing and prepare to read either some issue regarding something we’re working on or some commentary on something we’re not.  She’s succinct, smart, beyond sarcastic and always a welcome break.

Side note:  Angela’s email arrived after I had finally stopped laughing at the one that I read about an hour earlier from a cohort in our Kansas office.  The stuff that flies out of his mouth or comes across occasionally on my PC screen is ridiculous.  You literally cannot make any of it up.  It went something like this:

“I think my customer meant to send this to you on this email chain, not Bethany Strange who is within his organization.”

“Thanks.  And yeah, like THAT’s all I need – a last name of Strange.”

“I went to school with a girl named Jodi Roudybush.  Freak’n awesome.  Had to date that.”

Ok, I know - but in the midst of our constant high-pressure and nonstop world of sales, childish humor sends me into fits of hysteria.  I’m sure I was laughing the hardest in that moment because I knew he would later confirm the answer to my very rhetorical question of, “Did you really date her?” with an affirmative. 

Angela’s much more mature email was forwarded and simply said, “Love this.”

So did I…

Months ago, I turned her on to The Skimm, which is a sardonic newsletter of sorts wherein two female writers “skim” the headline news and add their witty spin before pushing it out to incredibly thankful and fellow sarcastic folk like us.  Angela was apparently returning the favor now by sending me a newsletter (that I immediately subscribed to the second I finished reading) also written by women – smart women in Hollywood (and no, that’s actually not oxymoronic).

In the newsletter was a well-written article by Jennifer Lawrence.  Even more compelling than its sentence structure was the topic: gender equality.  The article was simply titled, “Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars?”

I began reading that article which such fervor it was like I was lapping up chocolate ice cream at the bottom of a bowl that had been stirred around frantically in an effort to turn it into soup.

And I quote:

It’s hard for me to speak about my experience as a working woman because I can safely say my problems aren’t exactly relatable. When the Sony hack happened and I found out how much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks, I didn’t get mad at Sony. I got mad at myself. I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early. I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need. (I told you it wasn’t relatable, don’t hate me).

Obviously I have already carved out time to watch every movie this girl has ever made, and am seriously chastising myself wondering why in the name of all things holy have I not yet seen American Hustle.

How ironic.  That is the exact movie which caused her to stop dead in her (still fairly young) tracks and ask herself the question of, “Why in the **** am I paid less than these guys when without me, there is no movie?” 

<my hand straight up in the air>  Oooh Oooh!!   I know the answer!  She hustled.  She worked her ass off.  Her acting chops are solid, her screen presence is commanding, and she is…cough, ahem, hello again my dear friend feminism…every guy's dream.  Oh, wait.  What do I mean by every guy's dream?

I mean that in this clichéd fantasy freaking world in which we ALL live – actors and non-actors and salespeople and teachers and fill a profession in as you may – men absolutely think that if a woman a) knows sports b) has a potty-mouth c) is “just one of the guys”, i.e. cool chick d) can quote movie lines and e) still bake and do their laundry and put on knee pads at their very whim/any day that end in ‘y’ – that their dream has finally come true.

Only guess what?  That lasts about a minute.  Or a day, a week, or sometimes even a year.  I can assure you - that emotionally masked dichotomy does not last a lifetime.  One of two things inevitably happens.  Either the man begins to feel emasculated by his dreamy counterpart who is literally doing nothing differently that what attracted him to her in the first place – or – she will begin to feel resentment for being the lone wolf in the relationship, one presumably she thought would be based at a minimum on truthfulness and equality.

I hate the term “Alpha Female” when used to describe a kick ass woman.  But let’s be honest, it’s a real thing and any woman (Jennifer Lawrence, I’m lookin’ at you) who falls under that heading is pretty much screwed.

Societal expectations are hard to ignore, probably because, oh…I don’t know…we live in a society; the real-world actually exists.  And the real-world tells women that we should behave in a certain way as long as it is the “accepted” way - “accepted” being (short version, my blood pressure is spiking) synonymous with “in our places” and not stepping on anyone's toes.

Whose toes, you ask?  ANYONE’s, I said.  That’s the bitch of it.  We can’t step on a man’s toes because he, according to society, is supposed to be the “Alpha” and we sure as sh*t can’t step on female toes because they are competing to gain the attention and courtship of men.  Whaaaa?

Screwed. 

To JLaw’s point:  she said she felt as if she should apologize for making so much money.  Until she saw the salaries of her male counterparts, that is.  In that moment, she realized two things:  her male counterparts were definitely not apologetic and society teaches women – no, scratch that – it demands of women that we apologize for being us.  Wherein “us” equals unintentionally making anyone, male OR female, feel inferior.

You know what she said in response to that demand?  “F that.” 

Right answer.  I mean really, what else is there to say?  As we all totally grasp and as Rihanna sings…haters gonna hate whether you’re doing bad or good.  It’s on them, not us.

I once walked into an appointment years ago and was greeted by a CEO who was sitting behind a gigantic leather desk centered in a gigantic windows-on-all-sides office.  He looked up, dropped his jaw, moved his eyes up and down what felt like a hundred times and then uttered in a voice of disdain, “Legs like that should be illegal.  You can sell me anything you want.”

The first thing that popped into my mind as my stomach tried to keep down all the instant queasiness was, “I’m sorry.”  Literally that’s what I thought.  “I shouldn’t have worn a skirt and made you say that.” 

Thankfully, adrenaline and protection-mode kicked in and in the blink of an eye, I felt my cheeks replace the redness of embarrassment with the redness of anger.  I simply stood there, looked that idiot square in the eyes and said, “I will never sell you anything.  My brain is even better than my legs and you are an a**-hole.”

And then I cried all the way back to the office, like I had done something wrong.  It took me many years to figure out I was crying because I let myself down.  I had wanted to apologize for being me instead of sticking up for myself.  (Forty-two year old me says, "sorry me.")

Fast forward roughly 17 years later to last week.  I was on the phone with two male cohorts as we waited for a prospect to join the call, and we were making light about how busy things are lately.  I was enjoying the camaraderie until one them said, “Well if I made the money Beth makes, I wouldn’t care about working this hard.”

I have no idea what they think I make, nor do I care because it’d be inaccurate and more so because it is the platitude of all salespeople. Not exaggerating, that was the second time in two weeks that kind of comment was made, the only difference being the male voice saying it.

I immediately felt ostracized both by and from the team.  Further, it took everything in my power to neither immediately think I should apologize, nor respond sounding like the unemotional B that the “Alpha Female” is stereotyped (read: plagued) by.  Instead I said, “My kitchen has nothing but coffee creamer, wine and straight up Gluten spaghetti in it, and my kid is in college.”  All true. 

What I was silently thinking in my (non-stupid, much more experienced) head was, “This is ‘Murcia boys…land of the free, home of the brave – I’m not the one stopping you from making more money.  You are.” 

Women are not the enemy.  Nor are men.  WE are the collective problem.  Humans are greedy, fallible, sinful, and  a whole slew of other not so great things.  People are fragile.  We have breaking points.  We fall down and we get back up.  We laugh, we cry.  We try and we fail.  And we also occasionally do really well at things we care about doing.

Yes, there is disparity.  But there is also something called common decency, compassion, and an understanding that when we throw each other under the bus, we will never solve any kind of problem worth solving.  Blame is its own form of failure.

I'm sorry...is it Friday yet?