Verses one through eight. The author has, by no means, finished his treatise but carries his argument over into verse one of chapter fifteen. He says that those of us who are strong should bear the infirmities of the weak. Let us stop right there and think really hard about what has been said. Let us see ourselves as strong in our particular faith or frame of mind. Let us consider exactly what it is that we feel is so right about the way we interpret reality. Let us consider why it is we interpret what others think and feel as weak. How does it all play out? What would it mean for the strong Christian to bear the “infirmities” of the Muslim? What would it mean for the Muslim, strong in his faith, to bear the “infirmities” of the Christian? How might it transpire that the faithful bear the differences of the unfaithful or the unfaithful the differences of the faithful? If any of us find it difficult to bear up under such a common weight – then maybe we are not as strong as we claim to be. Is a faith that fears or a righteousness that destroys out of hand really that strong? There is a parable that speaks of hiding a candle under a bed. Light is strong. It is good. It is commendable. However, we must ask the hard question. Is hidden light really light? Does not the hiding of one's light defeat the purpose of the light?
The point of the parable is that the light is set out for the good of all. The author of Romans suggests that we are not in this game to please ourselves but to please our fellow man by doing and saying the things that build him up in his own strength. I want to ask – when has righteousness ever been selfishness? Never. I get something wholly positive and encouraging from these words. I get that it is totally possible for the Christian to edify the Muslim or the Atheist, for the Muslim to edify the Atheist or the Christian, for the Atheist to edify the faithful. It is not only possible but it is a desirable human trait. It is desirable to follow the example of Jesus who took upon himself the reproaches that we, ourselves, face and still said and did the things that were beneficial for those who stood in opposition to the truth Jesus lived by. The record of Jesus is unique in that regard. He proved to the world what a righteous and faithful man is capable of. He saw what was “weak” in others but did not condemn, he forgave, he did, and said the things that were good for the others rather than pleasing himself. He who was strong bore the infirmities of the weak.
Each religion and frame of mind has its particular tenets. The books of the Hebrews, Muslims, and Christians each derive from the same history. We all have a Moses and a Noah and an Abraham. All of us have books that include patriarchs, prophets, and angels. To each of us, these writings provide the learning comforts that support our faith and righteousness. The Atheist and Agnostic may not share these particular books with us but they have other books that build them up in their strength. Followers of other religions also have their books and histories. The point is there is hope for all of us – whoever we are – whatever we are. We have been patient in our diligence and have found comfort in our faith or our science or philosophy but none of those writings existed for any other purpose than our learning. Divisions and differences were never inherent in those texts.
It is suggested in verse six that all of us strive to be of the same mind one toward another after the example of Jesus Christ who was, on this earth, the expression of God-mindedness. That is to say that the Muslim should be God-minded toward the Christian and the Christian should be God-minded toward the Muslim. I use the expression God-minded, here, as a more accurate interpretation of the word “like-minded.” We should have, rather than differences, the same mind toward each other – that is to draw from our personal strength to say and to do what is good and right and what builds up the other rather than to merely satisfy ourselves. Jesus is the example to follow in this regard. Jesus is the pattern of the temple in heaven.
Like-mindedness, forgiveness, selflessness, as taken from the example of Jesus, are traits in each of us that rise above the individual to glorify God. God makes no difference between one man and another. God is not a man; God is spirit. Here, the author of Romans puts forth that Jesus was the minister for the truth of that spirit to the circumcision. Circumcision speaks of the covenant between the spirit and mankind. Jesus is the minister to all faithful people who believe in the truth of the spirit. As that minister, Jesus is the confirmation of the promises that God made to the patriarchs shared between the Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
Verses nine through thirteen. In that Christ is the minister for the truth of the spirit to the circumcision, there is no elite club with its doors closed to non-members. The author seamlessly includes the gentiles – and not by his own opinion. He cites from the old books we look to for authority and confirmation. In that Jesus confirmed the promises made to the fathers, it is for the purpose that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. The gentiles are included. God had a plan and it included every nation and people and faith and non-faith of the world. No one is left out. The author shows us from established scripture.
“As it is written” is a part of the author's argument. He presents a thing that any of us might turn to for fact-checking. Now, one might initially think that the Hebrews and the Muslims have different books altogether but the first fact is just that. The differences are regional. They represent the differences between mortal authors rather than the difference between God and God. If I say that the truth of my God is established in where my hand falls and you say that the truth of your God is established in where your hand falls – that only proves that neither of us, on our own, can fully reach the object of our desire. Yet, chained together – we can reach quite a bit further. The cited verses from older scripture are meant to show that God's plan is for everyone working together. Look at the words, check the language.
“For this cause, I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.” That is a statement from old scripture that includes the outlying nations, cultures, and peoples. Let us ask, then, 'includes' among whom? The Gentiles are included among the chosen. Among the Hebrews, the Muslims, and even among the Christians, there is a human tendency to think, 'I am the chosen.' It is human to justify oneself, to pat oneself on the back. This human trait is not the inclusive trait of God, it is the exclusive trait of individuals who revel in creating boundaries. Yet, the word of God to all the so-called chosen is a command to include. “And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.”
God does not exclude any people. There is one God and one people. There is no single faith that is permitted to say they are the one people and that God is only God to them. There is only one God and he is above all boundaries of faith. He has created all people for Himself. Who are we to divide God among us? There is no 'us' and all the rest. There is only one people – all people. The author cites, “And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.” The word of God is not to this faith or that faith. It not only to the nation of the Hebrews or the Muslim nation. The word of God is not to this people or that people but to “all” people.
Admittedly, these references are vague. They do not point specifically to a shared source. However, the author, in verse twelve, quotes a prophet that is shared not only in Hebrew and Christian tradition but in Islamic tradition as well. I speak of the prophet Isaiah. This is what Wikipedia says about Isaiah in Islamic tradition. Isaiah, or his Arabic name أشعياء (transliterated: Ashiʻyā'), is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an or the Hadith, but appears frequently as a prophet in Islamic sources, such as Qisas Al-Anbiya and Tafsir. Tabari (310/923) provides the typical accounts for Islamic traditions regarding Isaiah. He is further mentioned and accepted as a prophet by other Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir, Al-Tha`labi and Kisa'i and also modern scholars such as Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Isaiah is notable for his predictions of the coming of Jesus and Muhammad. Isaiah's narrative in Islamic literature can be divided into three sections. The first establishes Isaiah as a prophet of Israel during the reign of Hezekiah; the second relates Isaiah's actions during the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib; and the third warns the nation of coming doom. Paralleling the Hebrew Bible, Islamic tradition states that Hezekiah was king in Jerusalem during Isaiah's time. Hezekiah heard and obeyed Isaiah's advice, but could not quell the turbulence in Israel. This tradition maintains that Hezekiah was a righteous man and that the turbulence worsened after him. After the death of the king, Isaiah told the people not to forsake God, and warned Israel to cease from its persistent sin and disobedience. Muslim tradition maintains that the unrighteous of Israel in their anger sought to kill Isaiah. In a death that resembles that attributed to Isaiah in Lives of the Prophets, Muslim exegesis recounts that Isaiah was martyred by Israelites by being sawn in two.
The author of Romans quotes Isaiah thus, “And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.” The nations are not presented as conglomerates of individuals but, rather, as entities that, as a whole, may be known for such shared human traits as “trust.” The nation of the United States of America, not as individuals but as a whole, trusts the risen one who is meant to reign over the Gentiles. We have inscribed our trust upon our currency as a national motto – 'In God We Trust.' Recall that Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and my father are one.” Christ, as an example of God in man, is named the Truth. The Truth may apply to any man. What is the mind, the spirit, in a man? What is the most special, that is to say, Holy, mind or spirit in man? It is the Holy Spirit of Truth – the truth being God in man. This is desirable in a Hebrew, in a Muslim, in a Christian, or any other individual of faith. Just as Jesus can be one with God, we can be one with God – but only if we try, only if that is what we want. The author continues in verse thirteen, “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Think of that for a moment. The spirit of God in man, the Holy Ghost, is ascribed with the power of our faith to bring about joy, peace, and fulfillment.
Continuing in verse fourteen, the author speaks to the believers among the gentiles. That is to say, he speaks to the monotheists among the polytheist Romans. He has a good feeling about them. He gets a good vibe from them. He is fully persuaded about their positive attributes. Whoever they may be that believe in the one true God and his representative son, the author considers them to be brethren. He deems that all of his monotheist brothers and sisters are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and, as such, are able to admonish one another. Let us zero in on the two salient points in this verse.
Point one is about the knowledge. It is not just knowledge that they are full of, per se. No. Limited or localized knowledge is not what the author addresses here. Rather, he addresses “all” knowledge. What does it mean that the author puts it that way? It means that the Jews have a measure of the whole, the Christians have a measure of the whole, the Muslims have a measure of the whole. If knowledge could be presented as a jig-saw puzzle, we could then say that each group, in and of themselves, only possess a handful of the pieces needed to complete the big picture. Together, and only together, it may be said that they possess “all” knowledge.
Point two is about what the monotheists do with their handful of puzzle pieces. They are, as the author claims, “able also to admonish one another.” Admonish means to advise, urge, recommend, caution, warn, counsel, exhort, implore, beseech, and encourage. These actions are taken to maintain unity, solidarity, and forward momentum. The actions, all of them, are on a par with the self-healing function within a single body. The white blood cells in my body will maintain my own growth and good health but are of no purpose to any organism outside of myself. Also, just as the white blood cells derive from the skeleton that supports the body, the actions listed above derive from the system of support within a single body. They are not meant to be applied to external bodies. “All” knowledge, as well as the action of admonishment, is a single-body event.
Admonishment is not intended for the enemy. We do not encourage the enemy to oppose us. The concept of 'all knowledge,' as presented by the author of the book of Romans, is not a concept whereby scattered entities assist the entities that oppose them. No. It is a concept, rather, in which a single body, using all of the combined puzzle pieces, recognizes and promotes self-awareness within the context of unity. What that means is that if you hold some of the pieces, you are part of the body. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are not separate, are not inimical, not alien. They are, in actuality, three organs within the single body of monotheism. Each of the three arms of truth is meant to support the others, to hold each other in check. In that sense, if one sibling begins to color outside the lines, the actions of self-maintenance may appear to be a reprimand or a rebuke. Actions of this nature, while seeming hostile, are still acts of self-maintenance within a single body.
The author has been deliberately bold in his writing. He has gathered the three arms of truth and tried his best to put them in mind, as he says, that because of the grace of the one true God, he has dedicated himself to be the minister of the representative son among the Gentiles. That is to say, the office and purpose of the author are to be the minister of Jesus Christ among the differing cultures. If his small life has any meaning, he so much as says, it is in the fact that he attends those matters that pertain to the one true God. He accomplishes that duty through the agency of Jesus Christ. He is not putting forward anything that was not accomplished through Christ. In other words, he is not making any of this up. His words and deeds, for the self-maintenance of the body (to bring the nations and cultures of monotheism together in acts of obedience (self-awareness within the context of unity) to God), originate in and are powered by the truth of God in man – Jesus Christ. He reminds his readers that through the power of the spirit of God, through signs and wonders beyond the scope of mortal ability, he has gone from Jerusalem to Illyricum in the single-minded act of self-maintenance for the body of monotheism – he has preached the gospel, and only the gospel, of Christ. The gospel is the good news. The good news is the truth. The truth is God in man.
So, I pick up in verse twenty. The author feels that he has worked really hard for the cause. He has done his utmost. He has not striven to build upon another man's foundation in the cause of Christ. Peter and the other apostles were already bringing Christ to the Jews from which he originated. As he said: to the Jew first. The Jews had priority in the matter but no monopoly. The author also said: and also to the Greek. Sure, Jesus said he came only for 'the lost sheep of Israel' but he also said, in Luke twenty-four verse forty-seven, “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” So, yes. Jesus came from the Jews to the Jews but that was only a starting point. Note the word 'all' in “among all nations.”
It was meant to be. All nations included the nations of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Arabians, Persians, Hindus, and Turks just to name a few. Jesus is for all nations, all peoples, all cultures. Paul was the apostle to all nations. Israel already had their church. He took the ministry on the road. Did Jesus have a place in other cultures and other faiths? The author thought so. He quoted scripture as an endorsement of his ministry. “To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.” The delay in his getting to the Romans was due to the fulfillment of his franchise in other places. To add to his great desire over many years to go to them, his work in certain areas was, at that point, complete to the extent where he was able to make plans to reach them.
His intent was certain. He had faith that he would reach them by and by – to be strengthened by their fellowship insomuch that it would propel him forward into continued service in new places. They would be lumped together with his visit to Spain but after his return to Jerusalem where he hoped to minister to the saints. I pulled this from Wikisource: Ever he cherished the hope that in some way he might be instrumental in removing the prejudice of his unbelieving countrymen so that they might be led to accept the precious light of the gospel. He also desired to meet the church at Jerusalem and bear to them the gifts sent by the Gentile churches to the poor brethren in Judea. And by this visit, he hoped to bring about a firmer union between the Jewish and the Gentile converts to the faith.
He was determined and his belief was that if the nations were included in the spiritual benefits of the Jewish people, the nations were also responsible to help out in times of great need. His plan to return to Jerusalem was an iffy matter. He had intelligence that certain unbelievers in the area would try again to thwart his ministry. There was a certain amount of risk and danger involved but his mind was set. He saw the blessing in his work and asked for their prayers that things would go well. He was not completely certain that his Jewish counterparts in the Jerusalem church would accept him and the material support he had gathered for them. His hope was to come to the Romans by the will of God and that the will of God would give him some joy in his service to the saints – that after the completion and success of that work, he might, with the Romans, be refreshed. His work was arduous but his optimism was high and he wished those in Rome the best until they met.
No comments:
Post a Comment