Romans 2

On to Romans 2. Paul's purpose of 'convicting the world' continues from chapter 1.

God's Righteous Judgment
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

As I'm reading this epistle, I'm reminded of how applicable it is to present-day spiritual problems. People often make the argument that because they were written 2000 years ago, these letters by Paul do not carry much weight: Paul could not have foreseen the invention of the steam engine, let alone the marvelous advancements made in Philosophy by Arthur Schopenhauer (squeeeee!).

However, there are two critiques made in this part of the letter that resonate very well today. The first is the over-arching theme of condemnation. Speaking through Paul, God reminds us that we are under his righteous judgment. I think a present failing of many people (myself included) is that we do not think of actions as being righteous or unrighteous. They may be wise or foolish. They may harm others or oneself. They may add to the total utility of society. The only time an action is wrong is when it infringes on the rights of another.

A second critique comes as a result of the first: recognizing the sinfulness of the world involves recognizing the sinfulness of oneself. You cannot condemn or judge other people without condemning yourself. Curiously, this passage was quoted to me as evidence in favor of condoning sin. However, I think the problem that Paul is addressing is an inconsistent or hypocritical application of God's Law, rather than just the application itself.

There is a similar account in Matthew 7, in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Again, it is the hypocritical application that is being attacked here.

Why is this relevant? A poll I read showed that a lot of young people felt that the church was hypocritical in its moral teachings, and that this hurt Christian credibility. How can you take Ted Haggard seriously when he engages in homosexual affairs? How can you believe what Jim Bakker says after all of the accounting scandals?

Aside from those two contemporary issues (a hard-hearted society and a hypocritical church), this section goes on to talk about the law written on men's hearts, as well as good works.

How about the law written on men's hearts? Does such a thing exist? Is there such a thing as a conscience? That it exists is a fairly unarguable fact: you know as well as I do that you feel bad when you do something bad. As Abraham Lincoln is quoted to have said, "When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."

How, then, do we account for differences in moralities and consciences between groups throughout history? And isn't it a social construct anyway? If it is so malleable, how can God justly judge us? One answer presented here is that it's not God's fault if men dull their own consciences or those of the people around them. Besides which, God's giving of the Law serves as a perfect, codified version with which we are to check our consciences.

As far as righteous works are concerned, I'll quote Luther in a second, but it dovetails into the next few verses.

The Jews and the Law

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

This gives me opportunity to talk about another layer in the topic of righteousness and condemnation: inner and outer action. People can see outer actions, be they righteous or wicked, but is impossible for us to see inner actions. People could even be performing an outwardly righteous action (say, giving to the poor) for an inwardly unrighteous reason (say, for the fame and social status). The hypocrisy here is condemning outer actions and not condemning inner ones.

Here's Luther on the subject:

You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That's the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God's law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God's law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, "You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another." It is as if he were saying, "Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another's eye but do not notice the beam in your own."

Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn't last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don't even know what you are teaching. You've never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can't possibly do.

This section also talks about circumcision being "more than merely outward and physical." Circumcision marked the Covenant between God and Abraham. There is therefore a relation with the New Covenant that Jesus gives in the Lord's Supper. These sacraments are not just symbols or outer remembrances or ceremonies. There are important things going on. This is why Paul and many Christians get a little upset with open, anything-goes communion.

More Signs of the Apocalypse

Last night was Man VS. Monkey Night on Deal or No Deal.

Great Scenes in Movie History

1. Opening Scene to Star Wars: A New Hope.

This film should be studied for years to understand how all movies should start. Those little blue letters about a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...and then BOOOOOOM! John Williams hits you with that horn section, and the letters scroll up, and then you see that huuuuuge star destroyer, cut to where there's warning klaxons going on all over, the robots are running one way, the ship's crew are running the other, and then everyone gets in place.

It's quiet. A few ominous sounds of metal-on-metal, and then BLAMO again, as the stormtroopers blow up the door and start blasting everybody. And then, you guys, in the middle of this white-ish door steps through Darth f--king Vader.

2. The Scene In That One Church from Saving Private Ryan

Medic Wade: Actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake.
Mellish: How is that, Wade?
Medic Wade: Well, when my mother was an intern, she used to work late through the night... sleep through the day. So the only time we'd ever get to talk about anything is when she'd get home. So what I... I used to do, I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake as long as I could, but it never worked 'cause... 'cause the harder I'd try, the faster I'd fall asleep.
Private Reiben: Yeah well, that wouldn't have mattered none in my house. My ma, she would've come home, shook me awake, chatted me up 'til dawn. I swear that woman was never too tired to talk.
Mellish: That was probably the only time she could get a word in.
Medic Wade: Only thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep.
Mellish: Who, your mom?
Medic Wade: Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway looking at me... and I'd just keep my eyes shut. And I knew she just wanted to find out about my day - that she came home early... just to talk to me. And I still wouldn't move... I'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that.

Gets me every time.

3. Closing Scene to Field of Dreams.

Where he asks his dead dad to go play catch? Oh man, you'd have to be some sort of cold unfeeling robot (or a girl) to not cry at that. I don't know if women will understand that movie at all- probably not. It's probably like Brian's Song in its ability to make men cry, while women don't get it. So remember, sports-obsessed culture, if you want to tug on the heartstrings, make a movie about sports. Or war. Or wargames. I cry every time I play tic-tac-toe, now. Only Jordan will get that joke.

4. The scene in The Jerk where Navin gets randomly shot at.

I laugh throughout this movie, but never as hard as when Navin gets overenthusiastic about the Phone Book: "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here! Things are going to start happening to me, now!" Cut to scene of maniacal killer selecting his victim at random from the phone book: "Navin R. Johnson, random sonofabitch milkface bastard."

And then the cans. "He hates these cans! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!" Steve Martin's horror when he finds that he's accidentally taken refuge behind a Coca-Cola machine is priceless.

5. Rain Scene from The Notebook.

It's so over the top that I can't help secretly liking it. "I wrote you every day for a year. It wasn't over. It's still not over." Ker-smooooooooooooooooch.

That's it. Those are the five best, ever. Everybody else go home. Where are you going to go from there? Forget about it.

Romans 1

Now with blockquotes!

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a notable way to start out a letter to Christians in Rome. I can only assume that some would be Jewish converts, but that a larger share would be Gentiles. Would the Gentiles much care if Jesus had been promised and prophesied about many years before? Would they understand what it means that Jesus is related to David?

There is a common motif found throughout the New Testament that Paul also uses here. Elsewhere, when people talk about the flesh or the spirit, these are placeholders for the deprived state of human nature before God's grace, compared to the soul that has been renewed. Remember when Jesus is about to be betrayed, his disciples fall asleep when they should be praying, and Jesus says, "The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

So what does Paul mean when he says that "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead"? The 'human nature' that Christ has that Paul is talking about is part of Christ's Humiliation: that period of time that Jesus gave up his full powers as God and became a man that ate, slept, cried, walked, drank, and talked.

The Resurrection, then, is part of his Glorification- those periods when Jesus is revealed to be the Deity he is. The NIV translates the word 'Spirit' in this passage with a capital 'S', that is, the Holy Spirit. This might be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit declared Jesus to be holy, or something. It's confusing. But it doesn't really show that Flesh VS Spirit motif very well. A WELS seminarian, who is much better at this stuff than I am, writes an alternative translation:

"He was by the resurrection from the dead designated as the Son of God in power, in full accord with his spiritual mode of existence, an existence characterized by holiness.”

Paul's Longing to Visit Rome

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

This is an excellent statement of the gospel's purpose. God is using it in order to save everyone who believes. Whenever people complain that God doesn't do anything, you can show this passage. God is using the gospel as his tool to redeem mankind. Compare popular conceptions of Christianity to this. Jesus may well be nice and good and want us to treat other people with kindness and respect, but the entire point behind this story is salvation, not behavior modification.

Lastly in this section, Paul begins one of the biggest themes of his epistle: righteousness. Don't make the mistake I sometimes make after watching too much Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and think of righteousness as an all-encompassing generally positive modifier. It has a clear meaning: doing the right things. Following God's Will perfectly.

The Bible often uses the illustration of a courtroom, with God as the Judge. People come before him, and are accused of wrongdoing (The Accuser is a popular euphemism for Satan). If they are righteous, they don't have anything to be worried about. But if they are unrighteous (hint: this covers a LOT of people), they are in trouble. Paul is saying that there is some way to be made righteous before God, even if you are unrighteous.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The first part of this section is cool because it deals with a variety of issues I've written about before: evolution, Creation, environmentalism, and the culpability of mankind.

Agnostics I've talked to bring up this point a lot: you are a Christian because your parents are Christian and that is what you have been taught. How is it fair for God to deny salvation to people who, through no fault of their own do not have access to Christian parents or the Bible or seminaries or missionaries?

Paul answers here that no one should be able to make that claim. The evidence of God's Creation is so powerful and manifest that "men are without excuse". All societies at one time had an understanding of God. Some threw that understanding away, exchanging an inconvenient truth for a lie.

Evolution and other sciences like astrophysics directly combat this point. The evidence of God's Creation is not convincing at all. We've looked and looked and looked, and our best answer is NOT that God made the universe, but that we exist as a cosmic fluke.

Environmentalism has a role to play in this, too. In this section, Paul says that the natural world testifies to the attributes of God. If we treat the natural world better, those attributes can better be seen. The restoration of the natural world would also be a great way to communicate the restoration of our place as children of God.

Now on to the homosexual stuff. You simply cannot maintain biblical integrity and claim that homosexuality is not a sin: it's condemned strongly here, elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament. Some people will actually try to do this, and tie themselves up in knots. If you accept only certain parts of the Bible, this is not a big problem: St. Paul was correct in his teachings of atonement, sanctification, and faith alone, but not this part about homosexuality.

I do not know why some American church bodies have reversed course on this issue. Which is more probable: the teachings of the church have been incorrect for thousands of years, or that modern churches are falsely changing doctrine due to social pressure? This may be one of the only times in recorded church history when churches have openly sanctioned activities that are condemned by scripture. Paul might have written today, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Barack Obama: Socialist?

There can be only one answer when Barack Obama funds million-dollar bonuses at AIG with taxpayer money and gives $25 billion to the Big Three (on the condition that they lower their labor costs to be more in line with other companies).

Barack Obama is afraid of being called a Socialist, so he is doing the most non-Socialist policies possible.

On Green Lantern

So one of my favorite comic book heroes growing up was Green Lantern. For those of you who are in denial about their past, Green Lantern used the green power of a green ring he got from the good people of Oa. Or possibly Ao. He had two flaws:

1. His green powers wouldn't work against the color yellow. So he'd, like, make a green gun and shoot it at you, and if you were wearing a yellow hat, you'd be ok.

2. He would sometimes run out of power in his ring, and have to refill it using, get this, a Green Lantern. I guess sometimes even that green lantern would get low, so he'd have to go back to Oa every now and then.

So that was fun. Until they started messing around with the story. All of a sudden, they came out with new green rings that did work against the color yellow. But wait! Then they didn't work against yellow, once again. But wait! There wasn't a flaw in the rings all along! It was simply the fear and belief in the powerlessness against the color yellow that created a self-fulfilling prophecy that made them powerless against the color yellow.

Also, eventually, the planet of Oa was destroyed. You would think that this would end the entire sequence. Instead, the new (and last) Green Lantern has a ring of unlimited green power. That has no weaknesses.

Then he got a sidekick, Green Arrow. Green Arrow didn't have any superpowers or rings of unlimited power, but he did have arrows. Special arrows that would freeze people or stun them or release noxious gas or explode. Except he had a moral thing against killing people.

So, unlimited power that can be unleashed with a thought. And a sidekick who doesn't kill people and has no superpowers.

On Flying Carpets

Let's say that your magic carpet could, in fact, fly. It is still a terrible idea! There is nothing to hold on to, there is no protection from the elements, including the winds at high elevations, and it is not pressurized.