Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 10)

Condemnation, attempts at heavy-handed transformation, or a mission-denying withdrawal and separation are not the means by which either Paul or Jesus asked for or expected the culture to be countered.  Remember, Jesus saved his denouncements for the leaders of the people.  Rather, the culture is countered, and the  transformation into a culture that comes closer to living as the true humanity originally intended by the Creator, through the kingdom-modeling, sacrificial, love-motivated and service-oriented activities of the members of the body of Christ, as they demonstrably and tangibly live out, in imitation of Jesus their claim that Jesus is Lord, and that He is Lord even over the Caesar that bears the title of “son of god.” 

What appearance will be taken by these activities?  Naturally, one can find the answer on nearly every page of Scripture.  Believers can look to the Jesus tradition as embodied by the Gospel accounts.  They can look at Acts.  When it comes to Paul, an observer can look at the entire body of work that is attributed to him in order to formulate an answer to this question.  However, this study is focusing in on a letter to Timothy, to whom Paul refers as his genuine child in the faith, seeing there what can be understood to be, regardless of Timothy’s “position” in the church, a personally directed letter that demands a personal response of a single member of the body of Christ, who is presumably attempting to live and to serve as part of a community that is yet one small component of a global kingdom.  Thus, realizing that there is a helpful counter-cultural message in the text of the letter may show the letter to be even more useful than some have previously imagined.   

When one thinks about countering the culture, it is almost inevitable that the first thoughts run to laws and to government.  In many ways and in many places, humans are brought up to think in such ways, believing governments to be either the source of problems or of solutions to problems, and are thereby ingrained with an almost unshakeable desire to effect changes that they would like to see through the coercive power of laws and regulations.  Government is recognized as the locus of power for the enforcement of laws.  By extension then, a government is an entity that has the power to regulate behavioral changes.  Such thinking was probably just as true in the days of Paul and Timothy as it is now. 

As the church presented a counter-imperial and counter-cultural ethic, it would be quite easy for the members of the body of Christ, who saw themselves (and should still see themselves) as representative of a kingdom to which all other kingdoms are subservient, to slip into a mindset that being counter-imperial or counter-cultural also meant that they were to be anti-government, especially if that government was actively oppressive towards Christians.  It is quite understandable why their Roman rulers were suspicious of so many Christians, considering the fact that Christians claimed to serve a Lord that was far superior to the emperor, while at the same time affirming their loyalty to a kingdom that was not Rome. 

It was one thing to maintain loyalty to tribal deities and to long-standing territorial power structures that could be taken advantage of by Rome as a means of preserving order and extending its reach, and which could stand side-by-side with Roman imperial ideology and worship, but it was quite another to take a position that ran contrary to that ideology that also served to discount the worship of Caesar, and even going so far as to place a criminal that was executed by Rome at the center of its worship and allegiance.  This was a direct affront to the power of Rome and to all community and civic sensibilities. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 9)

These heralding words from the letter to the Ephesians, and more importantly for purposes of this study, the heralding words that are employed in the first letter to Timothy, are so much more than words that a client would use in honor of his patron.  They are words, as already indicated, that would be reserved for the honoring of the world’s patron (the patron of patrons), who was Caesar.  It serves as yet another indication to an alert listener or reader, that Paul, and those communities being formed around the claims of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), stand in opposition to much of the prevailing culture of the day and are intended to be a transformative element within that culture. 

This transformation will not occur through denouncing the surrounding culture as hell-bound, perverse, or any number of adjectives that do much to polarize and little to effect change.  While there is certainly a mystical power in the pronouncement that Jesus is Lord, one can certainly agree that the power is magnified if the life of the speaker accords with the claim.  This goes well beyond the avoidance of things that are determined to be “sins” or that which is to be avoided by Christians, having much more to do with an active engagement with the culture that demonstrates the Lordship of Jesus over every area of life. 

The pronouncement of condemnation on anything and everything that does not align with one’s personal viewpoint is hardly effective, and the condoning of such activities would have to be read into the Scriptures in a way that lacks context or coherence.  This approach would probably fail to take into account the historical movement of Scripture, the over-arching meta-narrative of exile and exodus by which the Scriptures ask to be read, and the covenant and covenant-people framework on offer throughout the whole of the Bible that defines the people of the Creator God and that God’s mission in and for His world. 

Attempts to use Jesus’ harsh words against the leaders of the people, His actions in the Temple, or the sharp words of the prophets and the apostles as justification for harshness or ugliness that is merely cloaked in the veil of a pseudo-love, would be to abuse and misuse those words and actions, especially considering the fact that the harshness is so often directed to the covenant God’s covenant people.  Though one can look through the prophets and certainly find words of the Creator God’s condemnation directed towards the nations that surrounded and often mistreated Israel, not only is there a need to remember that such words were subsequent to the Creator God’s judgment of His people, but also to remember that this God’s taking up of human flesh and going to a cross in order to die for His enemies (after telling His people to pray for and love their enemies) pretty much changes everything.   

Distance from the text, both historically and culturally, especially for those in the western world, should lead away from dogmatism in engagement with respective cultures, and towards a compassionate, inquisitive, and mercy-tinged engagement that recognizes shortcomings and a lack of complete knowledge.  When one looks at the New Testament, what must be seen behind the text are communities that are struggling to come to terms with what is implied by the life of Jesus and the kingdom of the Creator God that has been inaugurated by His Resurrection, especially considering that said kingdom has been inaugurated in a way that was completely unexpected. 

This struggle, which can be seen in the New Testament and in the records and writings of the early church, encouragingly informs those that care to see that there has never been a monolithic “orthodoxy” at any point in time in the history of Christianity.  Therefore, any believer’s struggles, in attempting come to terms with the message of Jesus and His kingdom so that it might be possible to effectively, correctly, and faithfully engage the cultures in which the believers finds himself immersed, should inspire humility and a compassion for others, as the believers both depends upon and attempts to reflect the compassion of their covenant God as embodied by the Christ.     

Galatians & Giving (part 6)

After making reference to the familiar process of acquiring a slave (“to redeem those who were under the law” 4:5a), Paul continues with the language of slavery as he draws upon the custom of the adoption of slaves as sons, which would serve to demonstrate the great magnanimity of the master that performs such an adoption.  To do this he adds “so that we may be adopted as son sons with full rights… So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God” (Galatians 4:5b,7). 

To this Paul appends “Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all” (4:8).  Now to be sure, there may be some in this congregation that are not going to like what they are hearing, as it is heavily disruptive of the social order and certainly takes no heed to the all-important sense of honor before the community that is diligently pursued and jealously guarded.  Paul would naturally understand this, but like Jesus, it is simply not a cause for concern on his part, as it has no place in the pursuit of the establishment and expansion of the kingdom of the covenant God. 

Paul has discarded all honorific attachments, considering it unimportant in relation to what is necessary to embody the kingdom.  He’s more than content to take the lowest place, as He understands His Lord to have done and also directed His followers to do.  So even though Paul understands what makes for true honor, he’s not deluded about the way that this line of thinking is going to be received.  However, he understands it to be vital and necessary if the followers of Jesus are going to model out the kingdom of their God through their meal table, in the way that it was demonstrated by the one they call Lord.  Reinforcing the possibility that Paul is making waves and quite possibly creating animosity through what he insists that believers do, he writes “So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (4:16) 

Considering the language of slavery, and if one wants to hear Paul correctly from within the world in which he lived and the congregation to which he spoke, it must be understood that when Paul goes into his later analogy, comparing Sinai and the law with Hagar (and Ishmael) and slavery, whereas belief in Christ is set forth as the means for the expression of inclusion under the covenant in comparison to Isaac (and Sarah), one does not have to hear this as condemnation or an assertion of superiority. 

Clearly, Paul does not want those who he insists do not need to adhere to the outward marks of the covenant that are associated with the law to somehow feel superior to those that bear and uphold those covenant markers, while also confessing their belief in Jesus as Lord.  This would be antithetical to his purposes.  Rather, one is probably better served by holding on to the social dynamic that is at work, seeing Paul’s continual leveling out of the community, with all (be they the wealthy master of a slave), whether Jewish by birth and therefore a part of the Creator God’s originally elected people, or a Judaizing Gentile that has come to believe that they must uphold the covenant markers that were then in place, being slaves at one level or another.  For that reason, they should then be quite incapable of vaunting themselves over those that were actually slaves.  

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 9)

At the same time, all of these considerations serve as a reminder of just how important a role food and considerations about food played in the ancient world (and in many parts of the world today), in which gaining one’s sustenance is actually the primary, daily concern.  When work is engaged upon primarily to obtain food for self and family, and secondarily to meet the remainder of life’s basic needs, it is not difficult to assert that a divergent set of priorities will be in effect. 

Little wonder then that the church’s meal table, open to all and for all to share equally, with the wealthier and more well-to-do providing for all while sharing equally with all with no expectation of receiving an increase in their honor standing in exchange for the provision (ideally), was a table that served to draw people in, while also being ripe for corruption and a new and more insidious form of oppression---whether wantonly or through neglect, by ingrained social forces and sensibilities.  Little wonder then, that the stories of Jesus’ miraculous feedings, with enough for all and to spare, with all sharing equally at the hand of the One that represents the church (and that the church represents) gained such prominence in the community that called Jesus Lord and for whom the meal table was a prominent feature. 

Continuing then with this Petrine analysis, maintaining an examination of the third chapter, and re-grasping the handle of mutual self-sacrificial love that undergirds the call for wives to be subject to their husbands, Peter can be heard moving to a directive to “Let your beauty not be external---the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes---but the inner person of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and tranquil spirit, which is precious in God’s sight” (3:3-4).  These words are heard, of course, in the context of table fellowship.

Apart from the fact that the outward appearance can most certainly reflect the inward disposition, it is probably safe to say that Peter’s concern here is not with what appears on the surface.  What he is concerned about is the other-preferring love that is to be on display at the church’s meal table, which will then, because of the Gospel’s transformational power combined with the power and deterministic capacity of the meal table, be translated into other-preferring actions in and for the community (the world) in which the Christians find themselves. 

How can one make this conclusion? Here, Peter calls for the wealthier women in the church community---those that can avail themselves of the costly braiding of hair (in which jewels, precious metals, and other ornamentations would be woven into the hair), gold jewelry, and fine clothes---to consider those in their church community that are far less fortunate than they when it comes to such things. 

This is not a blanket directive, nor should it be considered a ban or a condemnation of these types of things.  Rather, it is an inducement from Peter to this church to act in love towards one another.  In this case, Peter is asking the wealthier women of the church---the women who would, though they had no real honor of their own, share in the honor of their husband, dressing and presenting themselves accordingly---to leave such things aside when they gather with their fellow believers and participate at meals together.  By removing the trappings of honor and dignity that garner the respect and admiration of the world, which can serve, albeit perhaps unintentionally, to keep true and undivided fellowship from taking place, the “inner person of the heart” comes to the fore, as love and respect for one’s fellow Christian is demonstrated. 

Only Son (part 23)

The root of the issue, when it comes to condemnation (exile, perishing), or the opposite of condemnation (exodus, eternal life), is belief in the God of creation.  That belief is inseparable from the Creator’s purposes for His divine image-bearers and the world that He had created, in accordance with His covenant promises, which fundamentally point to undoing and reversing the damage done by Adam.           

Later on in the third chapter of Gospel of John, John the Baptist can be heard speaking about Jesus.  Some of John’s disciples were concerned that people that had previously come out to follow John were now going to Jesus.  John’s initial response to this was “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven” (3:27a).  John, who has been previously recognized by Jesus (in the text) as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), and who seems to well understand the role to which he believed himself to have been appointed, sees the crowds gathering to Jesus as right and proper. 

It would seem that John recognizes that the time has come for Jesus to enter into His ministry, and that this ministry has been ordained by Israel’s God to supersede and supplant his own, as he had sown the seeds of the new exodus movement (into the new promised land in which the God of Israel would rule all through His Messiah) that would be taken up by Jesus.  So to this concern of his disciples, John responds by saying “He must become more important while I become less important” (3:30). 

Going further, John echoes the words that were previously spoken to Nicodemus by Jesus, as he says “The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under His authority” (3:35).  By this, John demonstrates his apparent understanding of the pronounced son of God tradition within Israel, as this love, along with all that goes with it, is the very thing that had been true of Adam, of Israel, and of Solomon.  Adam had been given complete authority over the whole of creation, Israel had been given authority over the promised land, and Solomon had been given authority over the Creator God’s people.  Perhaps more importantly, Solomon had been, at least according to Israel’s history, granted authority to build the Temple of God.  All of these things had been an outworking of the love of the Creator God, which had been directed towards these particular sons of God. 

Jesus’ cousin goes on to speak in a very similar fashion to Jesus Himself, doing so in the context of the long history of sonship and saying “The one who believes in the Son has eternal life.  The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him” (3:36).  Once again, the text draws a contrast between eternal life versus condemnation.  Believing in the Son, or believing “in the name of the one and only Son of God” (3:18b), which is another way of saying “believing in the faithful, covenant God because of the Son,” is what allows one to participate in the kingdom of God, which is participating in the rule of the Creator God on earth (the outworking of eternal life). 

So if all of this is properly understood both contextually and historically, what is implied for those that seek to comprehend the message of this Gospel?  Well, it should definitely change the way one approaches John 3:16, never allowing for the possibility of looking at it the same way again.  In particular, it should crystallize one’s thinking concerning what it is that the Creator God has purposed for those that confess an allegiance to Jesus, calling Him the Son of God, and appropriately vesting that title with divine attributes in conjunction with understanding Jesus as the Messiah for Israel.   One is best able to do so by thinking in terms of the Temple of God, especially if the Temple of God is rightly thought of as that place where the Creator God dwells (rests). 

Only Son (part 22)

If one was to accept that Jesus (at the time that He is speaking) intends Nicodemus to understand His words according to the historical-redemptive plans of the Creator God for His people and His creation, rather than as Jesus somehow obviously referring to Himself as the second person of the trinity (which would be contrary to the author’s intent at that point), then it is also possible to discover how Nicodemus is supposed to make sense of the words that followed. 

With his mental registration of the well-understood, oft-repeated, all-important, and self-defining story of Israel in mind, owing to Jesus’ use of the son of God terminology, Nicodemus can rightly grasp that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:17).  Quite unfortunately, as has been seen, Nicodemus would be well aware that condemnation for the world, with further and further condemnation for the world, had been the result of the best efforts of those sons (Adam, Israel, Solomon) that had been sent. 

“Saved,” of course, is not to be restricted to a sense of gaining assurances concerning the ethereal, after-death location of one’s immortal soul , nor is it to be restricted to the realm of humanity alone.  The use of “saved” is, above and beyond most every other usage, exodus language.  As exodus language, rooted in the narrative history of Israel that stretches back to the story of Adam, it implies an entrance, along with a maintenance following that entrance, into the Creator God’s purposes for both human beings and the whole of the physical, created world.  Each of the sons of God that have been reviewed heretofore had a particular purpose, with that purpose being to fulfill a set of covenant obligations and to cause the whole of the world (people and the creation itself) to be deluged with the blessings (saved, eternal life) of the covenant God, but the desired result never materialized. 

Rather, as has been noted, condemnation is what had materialized, with that condemnation (perishing) seemingly always rooted in an idolatry which represented a fundamental dis-belief in the promises of the Creator God.  The desired belief, of course, was to start with the being made in and as the Creator God’s image, with the blessings associated with that belief flowing to the remainder of the groaning creation (to quote Paul’s words from Romans, which itself is also a reference to the groaning of the son of God Israel in their Egyptian subjugation).  However, just as Adam had dragged the creation down with Him into death, so too did the failing sons continue to dam up what were supposed to be the readily available blessings of the Creator God, which had the effect of keeping themselves, humanity, and the whole of creation in bondage. 

Following from the words recorded in the seventeenth verse concerning condemnation, Jesus goes on to say “The one who believes in Him is not condemned.  The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the one and only Son of God” (3:18).  Not believing in the Name of the one and only Son of God is, in essence, the same as saying that one did not believe in the Creator God, as the idea of one person coming in the name of another person, as a representative of their power (here, one can consider the delegation of royal emissaries that speak for and represent a ruler), would have been, and still is, well understood.  

Visiting Bethany (part 4)

If a compare and contrast is underway, one glaring contrast between Jesus and the Caesar can be found in verses previously quoted from the third chapter of John.  There it is said that the covenant God of Israel “gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:16b-17).  Caesar, the man entitled with “son of god,” was looked to as the one who dragged the world from darkness to light.  With this, the parallel between John and the Augustus inscription becomes increasingly obvious. 

Yes, it was Caesar Augustus who was said to have brought order out of the chaos.  It was Caesar Augustus that was said to be responsible for the life and vitality of the world, with this spread throughout the world via the pax Romana (Roman peace).  It is Caesar Augustus who is referred to as the “Savior” of the world.  Ironically, though war would be almost endless, Augustus is credited with putting an end to war.  It is worth nothing that, though death continues, Jesus is credited with putting an end to death. 

For Ceasar of course, the end of war was accomplished by crushing his enemies through massive warfare.  Furthermore, it is said that Caesar Augustus is the fulfillment of all hopes and in him the world has “good news.”  How did this son of god “save” the world?  How did he bring the world into new life?  It could be argued that he did so through the instrument of death. 

He, his predecessors, and those that would follows and take up his mantle, slaughtered millions so as to usher in an era of “peace” and to give their version of life to the world.  Effectively, in order to give the world life and vitality through the establishment of the Roman empire, the world experienced an almost unprecedented level of condemnation.  The other Son of God, however, is said to bring eternal life and peace and light, which will be accomplished and effected through His worldwide kingdom. 

As the Gospel of John informs its readers, through Jesus the world will be saved, but this salvation will not come about through the world-condemning instrument of war and its power of death.  Ultimately, this salvation will come about through the laying down of His own life and going willfully into death in an act of self-sacrificial love---making Himself subject to that which was (and still is) the Caesar’s only true power. 

Returning to the issue at hand then, Martha can be heard speaking to Jesus and saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant you” (John 11:21-22).  In calling Jesus “Lord,” and doing so in the context of what is increasingly looking to be a “parousia” of Jesus, Martha has conferred upon Him one of the titles that was then accorded to and reserved for the Caesar.  Much like that which would have been experienced by the emperor when he would visit subjects within his realm, the one that has come out to greet Jesus makes it a point to honor the world’s ruler and to make comment upon His power. 

Fleshly Desires & Despising Authority (part 2 of 3)

Further, it is said that “in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words” (2 Peter 2:3a).  What was it for which they might be greedy?  Power?  Money?  Absolutely.  The deceptive words that Jesus was not the Messiah, coupled with a play on the emotions of people in conjunction with the promises of their God, would make it relatively easy to exploit the people to band together and to rise up to achieve the ends desired by these false teachers. 

What is said of such people who deny the Master with destructive heresies, slander the way of truth, who indulge in fleshly desires for power and human glory, who despise authority (as one considers Paul’s repeated insistence upon respecting governmental authority, while seemingly working to subvert empire at every turn), and lead God’s people into debauched lifestyles that are not in accordance with God’s intentions for His people and the kingdom model established through Jesus?  “Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction is not asleep” (2:3b).      

“Those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority” (2:10a) are despising “kuriotes,” which has the root of “kurios,” or “Lord.”  This was an official title for Caesar, and would not be far from the mind of the reader if governmental authorities are actually being referenced.  They are also said to be “Brazen and insolent” (2:10b).  This insolence is demonstrated in that “they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones” (2:10c).  Other translations render these “glorious ones” as “dignitaries,” or “those in exalted positions.” 

If these translations are accurate, then placing these words in the historical setting of the ongoing desire for rebellion against Rome is not terribly far-fetched.  To this is added that “even angels, who are much more powerful, do not bring a slanderous judgment against them before the Lord” (2:11).  “Them” being the dignitaries.  Why does this occur?  What is the root of these insults?  It is the rejection and denial of Jesus as the Messiah.  It is the rejection of the Gospel’s proclamation that Jesus is Lord and King of all.  Because of this rejection, which leads to a continual desire to find and support a messiah that can fulfill the fleshly desires of the exaltation of national Israel, a great time of destruction will come.  Ironically, rejecting Jesus’ as King leads to the desire to overthrow Rome, whereas accepting Jesus as King leads to appropriate submission to human governmental power, while also acknowledging its limitations.

Moving on, one reads that “these men, like irrational animals---creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed---do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently in their destruction they will be destroyed” (2:12).  Now, having just determined that insults were being cast against dignitaries and those of exalted position, it might be reasonable to think that this refers solely to such individuals.  It seems possible, though, that there is a double meaning here, in that while they are insulting authority that Paul has said has been established by God (with national Israel under the curse of Rome’s oppression as a result of the Creator God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises to them), they are truly insulting their God Himself, through the far more grave rejection of the One that He showed to be the Son of God (King) and Messiah (King) by raising Him from the dead.  

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 9 of 9)

It is then, after all of this, that Jesus says, “Give, and it will be given to you: A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be poured into your lap.  For the measure you use will be the measure you receive” (Luke 6:38).  It is possible for reasonable observers to agree that, after this lengthy examination, in no way does this statement have anything to do with giving as it is generally considered, or as this particular verse is generally positioned?  What is it that the Creator God wanted to give His covenant people?  According to Deuteronomy, which would have been the framework for the way that the people understood their situation, God wanted to reverse the captivity and have pity on His people. 

Thinking along those Deuteronomic lines, Jesus can be heard to be effectively saying, “Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other” (Deuteronomy 30:15).  Choosing the way of love and compassion was choosing the way of life rather than the way of death.  The way of death, for Israel, was that of judgment, condemnation, and lack of forgiveness.  Choosing life, which would be made possible by their trusting in their God by trusting that Jesus was the Messiah, would have their God saying to them “you will live and become numerous and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are about to possess” (30:16b).  By this, they would truly become sons of the Most High. 

Jesus expected the covenant people of the Creator God---the people who claimed a loyal allegiance to that creative, providential, and covenant God---to give more than they could ever imagine.  They were to give love (and all that naturally attends it) where it may not have been deserved, for they had received love when it had not been deserved.  They were to do good to those who hated them, or at the least, to those that they hated, so presumed that the feeling was mutual.  They were to offer blessings to those who cursed them, or to those who represented the ongoing cursing of their God.  They were to give compassion to those that struck them.  They were to be willing to give up their possessions, even to an enemy.  They were to give the withholding of judgment.  They were to give the withholding of condemnation.  They were to give forgiveness, for they had certainly experienced all of these things through the patience and promises of their God. 

It would be through the giving of all of these things that they would come to realize just how much they had already been given.  Indeed, in that realization, a good measure would be effectively poured into their laps; and indeed, they would come to understand that loving their enemies stemmed from their love of their God (as their God loved them even though they had almost continually been His enemies).  Finally, they would realize the measure of mercy they had already received, and in turn, realize that such was the measure that they should be willing to give.      

Propaganda & Covenant Inclusion (part 1 of 2)

For although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give Him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. - Romans 1:21-23  (NET)

The above passage goes on to speak of impurity, dishonorable passions, unnatural sexual relations, shameless acts, error, unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility, gossiping, slander, boasting, evil, disobedience, heartlessness, ruthlessness, and approval of all such things.  Paul’s recitation of mankind’s abuses would flow from out of him quite naturally, as for all practical purposes all that is to be found in verses eighteen through thirty-two of Romans one, was very likely nothing more than standard rhetoric directed at Gentiles by members of Israel, as they sought to maintain the purity, integrity, and identity of their people and their special, preferred status in the eyes of the Creator God.  The words that can be found there could form something of a propaganda against Gentiles, playing into the “us versus them” mentality that marked much of second temple Judaism (and unfortunately much of Christianity). 

This is not difficult for us to understand.  We in the church are quite accustomed to adopting such language and using it in such ways.  We sit in our pews and applaud (or perhaps just nod our heads in tacit, comfortable agreement) as preachers and teachers lift accusatory fingers and point them at the pagans and heathen of “the world,” whom our just God will rightly judge.  This is done while perhaps tossing in pithy and condescending statements (in the face of not-well-masked vitriol) such as “but Jesus loves them,” or “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” 

Even worse, we often find the “us versus them” mentality moving from the church versus the world (there is some necessary opposition, though it is often mis-directed) to church versus church, as one church, inevitably holding itself up as the repository of the true Gospel message, offers blanket condemnations to other churches that, by extension, fail to preach the “true Gospel.”  It must be said that this dualistic mentality is quite difficult to escape or to avoid altogether, requiring Christians to be on constant guard against falling into its unhelpful and damaging-to-the-Gospel clutches. 

How can we, after a perusal of the second half of chapter one of Romans, draw a conclusion in which we see Paul employing the propagandizing rhetoric that Israel has reserved for Gentiles?  Is this a legitimate observation?  We are aided in our reaching of that conclusion by that with which Paul opens the second chapter, which is “Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else.  For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things” (2:1). 

Following some intervening material in which Paul highlights God’s judgment, kindness, forbearance, and patience, in which he also tosses in “He will reward each one according to His works” (2:6) while also briefly railing against “selfish ambition” (2:8), we proceed to stumble upon a helpful statement, which is “There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek.  For there is no partiality with God” (2:9-11).  When reading Romans, we have to recognize the fact that the language of covenant extension and inclusiveness is everywhere, that it is woven into the text as a central theme, and that it must effect our reading and comprehension of Paul’s position.