Paul's Letter to the Church at Rome

An Wesleyan Gloss by Philip McPherson Rudisill

Note: This essay is rather old and has been superseded by an essay entitled a
Summary of Romans.

"Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." (Romans 12:15)

Preliminary note: With the concept of gloss I wish to understand a speculative formulation of the conception of a writer such that his text would follow derivatively. For example I might try to conceive of the mind of the writer of the the book of Matthew such that the text of that book would follow naturally. This I shall attempt to do with Paul's letter to Romans. The particular viewpoint shall be that of a Wesleyan such that I might be rightly accused of trying to see (or make) Paul a Wesleyan. The real meaning, of course, is that I wish to be able to derive many of the fundamentals of the Wesleyan conception from this book.

There can surely be no question that for the Wesleyan the letter of Paul to the Romans is the most important missive of the New Testament. For it was in musing on Luther's Preface to this great book at the small prayer meeting and study group at Aldersgate in London that the founder and principal architect of the 18th Century Methodist movement, John Wesley was "awakened," as he put it, to the realization of God's love for him. It was by virtue of this awakening that Wesley was able to change his perspective from that of trying to prove himself worthy of God's love and attention (which probably stemmed from a Calvinist doubt or "virus"*) to that of accepting himself as an instrument of God's loving purposes and thus whereby he could work to the best of his ability without concern for any particular success or failure which now, in his new conception, was entirely a function of God. It is doubtlessly in this frame of mind and attitude that the traditional Wesleyan proverb came to be formulated, namely:

Act as though everything depended upon you; and

Pray as though everything depended upon God,

the very epitome of practical, Wesleyan thinking.

[* When questioned by Moravians on his voyage to British colony of Georgia on the North American continent, Wesley was unable to assert an awareness of God's love for him, but merely of his "hope" for such love; and seems to have been surprised that the Moravians were surprised at the caution of his expression.**]

[** It is not without significance that on this same voyage Wesley reported being startled by the peace and calm that reigned over the Moravian contingent on board when the rest of the company, Wesley included, was scared out of their wits by the ferocity of a storm.]

When we examine Luther's Preface in search of the precise point where Wesley might have been moved to the transformation of this thinking, and while it is impossible to tell for sure, it seems most likely that Wesley was taken by Luther's assertion with regard to the purpose of faith, namely that it was by faith that God was able to work in the spirit of the individual to produce in him the cheerful, loving heart in place of the reluctant heart. The logic is something like this: the reluctant heart is pleasing to no one (least of all to God); but this reluctant heart is the natural state of man (given the Fall). God, evidently, will not work a miracle of transformation against the resisting will of any man. But the death of Christ convinces us of his love for us and of his desire to work this miracle within us, each of us, and through our awareness of this love if Christ for us we open ourselves up to his work, which (openness) is called faith. Then the transformation takes place and we become new creatures in Christ. Luther asserts further that this is all made possible through the merits of Christ.*

[* It is not clear whether Wesley actually formulated his own theory of atonement in the way of Luther, but he does reject the notion of any sort of need for appeasement of the "wrath of God" and instead speaks of God's "anger" at humans. The distinction is significant and instructive: God is indeed not satisfied with man's natural state (and in human terms might even be said to be frustrated and angered by the human refusal to heed his calls to us), but the man, not having any icon of unconditional love before the time of Christ, i.e., the death of Jesus for Barabbas (and through that death an expression of love for all persons whosoever), can only flee from the presence of God upon the realization of sin (à la children in the Garden of Eden story); but now, upon the realization of what Christ did (in dying for Barabbas and therefore, symbolically, for me), the man has every reason to think that God's intention is benevolent and is enabled to come boldly to God, even as a sinner, and to expect, i.e., have faith, that God will help with a remedy. This is a far cry from having to provide a juridical satisfaction to a God who has been offended by theft of some property or by some other infraction of a rule, and who requires some satisfaction before His ego and dignity can be restored such that the guilty party is able to appear in His presence.**]

[** Nonetheless, a juridically satisfying theory of atonement can be given which is soundly based on moral concepts. An example of such a theory, suggested by Immanuel Kant, East Prussian philosopher and contemporary of, but probably unknown to, Wesley is given in Appendix II.]

Now (upon his awakening) Wesley is able to see that he was loved all along and that he never needed to do anything to prove that love, and that indeed Christ had died for him and wanted only to work in and through him for the purposes of God. Thusly did the great burden of doubt fall from his shoulders and he no longer felt oppressed by his inability to live up to his own high standards of holiness in order to warrant the love and help of God; for he saw now clearly that God had loved him all along and had been working to bring about the very clarification of mind and spirit that he had experienced that evening in Aldersgate. And so while he, John Wesley, had been working so hard to win approval, he already possessed the acceptance necessary to lead to an approved state and needed merely to recognize and accept that himself and to yield his life now thoroughly to the care of God without troubling himself and his attitude further about questions concerning God's love. That was now behind him, and he could get on with God's work in a new spirit, according to the proverb above, where he was responsible only for doing his best, and God was responsible for the effective outcome of those efforts.

An integral aspect of Wesley's awakening is the fact that the faith leads to a transformation of the flesh, what is generally called sanctification, so that God does not accept a legalistic change of status (as though God were concerned with mere words and rituals and formalities), but rather utilizes the window of faith to access the spirit of the individual and through that spirit to work wonders in the flesh itself such that eventually (and this is usually gradual) the Christian finds himself doing with increasing ease and naturalness what was an ordeal earlier, i.e., heshe is becoming more like Christ.* This in turn electrifies the spirit to reach out in adoration of Christ as the one who wanted merely to be the first-born of a large family of kindred spirits, i.e., an example, and not merely a hero.

[* In the second chapter of Romans Paul refers to what I like to call the "righteous gentile", i.e., the non-Jew who does naturally what the law requires the Jew to do. While this disposition is not satisfying to God per se (as will be discussed below), it does make for a model of what God will produce with the committed believer,i.e., full sanctification in the flesh (given long enough life).]

This conception, as we shall see as we turn Wesleyan eyes upon this important letter of Paul, is pervasive throughout the text, for while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and it is through the faith of Abraham that salvation comes to the sinner.

We now turn to an examination of the text itself, Paul's Letter, in order to try to discern and make clear how it is that the sense that I am suggesting could be obtained from the letter, especially since important parts of the book have an evident, fatalistic cast to them which had undoubtedly been responsible for much of Wesley's tormenting doubts before the fateful evening and reading at Aldersgate.

A Preface to the Letter

I find it helpful to consider Paul's letter as an answer to five major questions that could arise during the first century about the new Christian faith, namely:

1. What was the point of the life and death of Jesus?

2. Why is it that the Jews have rejected the gospel of Jesus, even though Jesus was (supposedly) sent to the Jews for their benefit?

3. Seeing the Jews (generally) have rejected the gospel of Jesus, why should the Gentiles accept it? and finally:

4. Why is it that the Christian continues to suffer as do other people? (or, which is worse! as a result of being a Christian, i.e., persecution?) and its corollary:

5. How can the Christian be sure of his personal acceptance by God?

Paul's general and most fundamental premise underlying his entire letter is this: the problems with the world stem from the massive and debilitating moral defect in the soul of human being.* It is for this reason and in this regard that the Jew, the Chosen of God, is really no better (morally) than the Gentile, for the Jew is merely a man who has been given a law to adhere to by God, but who then treats that law, consistent with his corrupted character and his bent to selfish sin (which is typical of the man generally), as nothing more than an obstacle in the way of gratification of his whims and desires. It is precisely for this reason that the law, although good and thoroughly efficacious in a person whose intention is for good,** fails entirely within the Jewish society, so much so that the Jew even becomes Paul's epitome for the depravity of the man, i.e., by using the law as a means of hiding his unholiness while engaging in abominations equal to that of the worst gentiles. The problem then is man, and what is needed is a new heart (principle of decisioning and action); but that is impossible except by the grace and power of God. This grace and power are provided by God gratuitously through the person of Jesus, the Son of God, and then by means the faith that we have in this person, such that the new creature which is called for in order to be pleasing to God does in fact come into being, even if only progressively during life.

[* Kant makes an interesting observation in his treatise, Religion Within the Bounds of Sheer Reason, namely: that while the origin of evil in existence is inexplicable, the book of Genesis makes the point that in any case it did not originate with the man, the point being that while man is sinful, heshe is not evil (which would mean an inability to change).*** This means that the man will not act contrary to a moral law simply because it is a moral law (which would be more the characteristic of Satan, considered ideally), but only because it is convenient to do so, and heshe would have been equally (and perhaps even more) willing to do the right thing had it only been convenient.]

[** Paul emphasizes this in chapter 13 of the book in an interesting way. Speaking of law in general (and not just of God's law) he finds that the law's real purpose is quite consistent with the role and intention of the Christian, namely to produce community and orderly society. Therefore the Christian acts in accordance with law, but does so now (as a Christian) by inclination (in the idealized Christian but which is the goal of the Christian faith in a practical sense) so that the strife between man and law is finally ended, and the Jewish hypocrisy and subterfuge (merely typical of all mans in general) finally ceases in the Christian faith.]

[*** This may be the reason the scriptures report (Genesis 3:22-24) the erection of a barrier around the Tree of Life, namely that eating of this tree would mean that the man would be beyond transformation which, perhaps, is tied up in the fear of death.]

Examination of the Test of the Letter

At the very beginning of his epistle Paul quickly establishes his first premise, namely that the fact of God's existence and order is apparent to all persons, so that no one may plead any excuse for neglecting to abide by the commandments of God.*

[* See Appendix I for a discussion of the validity of this premise, and how it has been modified (although, practically speaking, thoroughly confirmed) by the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.]

Paul then immediately develops his message by noting very early in this letter (in chapters 1 and 2) that neither the gentile (who represents lawlessness) nor the Jew (with his vaunted law and legalism) is acceptable to God. The former assertion is clearly understandable* since the Gentile represents the dog-eat-dog world of selfish misery from which the Jews were called apart by God to represent His separatism or holiness. The latter assertion regarding the unacceptability of the Jews, however, will be a shock to Paul's readers, for the conventional wisdom was that it was the Jew who attained favor in the eyes of God, and who was elevated by God above the gentiles (even though occasionally he would put them "under the feet of the gentiles" to ensure conformity to his law).

[* The early Christians were constantly called upon to reconcile the fact of their faith with the massive rejection on the part of the Jews, for Jesus had by self admission come to the Jews as the Messiah promised by God (through the prophets) and expected by the Jews. In chapter 15, verses 8 and 9, Paul disconnects the gentile and the Jew and asserts that God's purpose was two fold with regard to Christ, namely to keep his word to the patriarchs and also to bring the salvation of God to the gentiles; and, as we shall see in chapters 9-11 the rejection on the part of the Jews works for the admission of the gentiles as such (and without having to become Jews first {presumably; this being the thesis of Acts 15 and all of Galatians}).]

In defending his assertion as to the unacceptability of the Jew Paul takes a moment to note that the only real difference between the actions and attitude of the Jew is that while the Jew engages in the same sinful behavior that the Gentile relishes, the Jew at least is willing publicly to disapprove of such behavior while the Gentile approves and promotes it by his unabashed applause. So the Jew at least is willing to talk of holiness, even though he is not willing to practice holiness.*

[* This sense is clear from Romans 1:32 through 2:1, where we are told that the Gentile does evil and applauds those who do so, while the Jew also does evil, but condemns all who do such (2:21-23). In fact most of this chapter is dedicate to establishing that it is not lip service which pleases God, but deeds conformable to the law.**]

[** Although this latter thesis is only tentative at this point, and will be discussed in more detail later.]

But this is unacceptable to God who demands real holiness and not the sham prattle of hypocritical holiness. It is not the talk that impresses God, according to Paul, but rather only the living of the law.

But then a quandary arises: if the gentile is not acceptable to God (because of his blatant sin) and if the Jew is not acceptable either (because of his hidden sin and his hypocrisy), what else is there? Where is the mean between the gentile outlaw and libertine on one side, and the Jewish legalist and hypocrite on the other?!

Paul gives us a surprising hint already in Chapter 2, the so-called Righteous Gentile.* According to this concept the Righteous Gentile is the man who naturally follows the (moral) law of God, and who is generally referred to as a decent person or a good person. It is this person who comes closest to the heart of God, according to Paul, for it is this person who has no need of being instructed nor of requiring some incentive to do good, and thus avoids the hypocrisy of the Jew; and yet, at the same time, avoids the murky pit of licentiousness which characterizes the Gentile in the eye of Paul and the Jews in general. And so the Righteous Gentile, as conceived by Paul, presents a picture of a person who is close to the heart of God by nature and by inclination* and so in freedom and by his own nature conforms to what is right and decent; unlike the Jew who does right only reluctantly and due to fear of discovery** and unlike the gentile who does his evil unabashed and openly and shamelessly.

[* The actual term itself is Jewish and may be of much more modern origin. There is some area of Israel today which is dedicated to the Righteous Gentile. An interesting scriptural reference is 1 Samuel 13:14.]

[** And so who is prepared and ready to do evil, assuming only that heshe will not be caught. The category is one who knows right and wrong, but will do the right only if (1) it is not inconvenient or (2) it is profitable in some way.]

Paul breaks the train of the development of his thesis briefly at the beginning of Chapter 3 to acknowledge the purpose of the Jew in answer to the presumed question, "well, if being a Jew is not the most important thing in the world, then what is the point of the Jewish nation and what is the advantage of being a Jew?" Paul replies that while it was certainly an advantage to be a Jew, for it carried the great honor of being the first sighter of the love of God, it is by no means the end-all, for God simply is interested in salvation itself, i.e., His righteousness,* and not merely in talk about it. Thus He is pleased with the Jew no more than he is with the gentile. And the reason is fairly simple (as we learn further in our reading of chapter 3), namely: the sinful nature of the man in general.

[* Which, as we glean from Paul's writings in general, is the fact of natural goodness, i.e., God is good by nature, and it is this righteousness alone that can be pleasing to him.]

This fact (of Divine displeasure with the attitude of sinful man) will explain much of Paul's concern about the law. We may suspect from this assertion and from what has already been said in chapter 2 that Paul is focusing on a critical and, above all, a fatal, moral defect in the nature of man, namely his penchant to serving self above all and his utilization of all means for the accomplishment of that, so much so that all people are used (to gratify the individual man's inclinations and desires); and indeed (and constituting an insult to God's majesty) even the law of God itself becomes merely another means. In other words, if a Jew, for example, wants some forbidden fruit, then heshe calculates the risk factor and if heshe determines that the cost is less than the benefit, then heshe engages in the activity. One of the costs will be the discomfort necessary to obtain the favor of God in spite of the transgression, which will usually be a matter of some prescribed sacrifice [and where the rich, incidentally, are more favored than the poor due to their greater ability to pay for the sacrifices and also their access to lawyers and rabbis who, as "loophole artists," can conceive and formulate ways around the law].* And therefore there is no real difference at all between the Jew and the Gentile, only that the former, the Jew, feels safe via the legal alternatives to God's curse, i.e., sacrifices; and so heshe can do what the Gentile does but, unlike the gentile, the Jew can get away with it, for heshe is a one of a "holy people and under the protection of God."** All that need be done (according to this Jewish mind set) is to attend services on Yon Kippur and to honor the Sabbath and to "talk the talk", i.e., pay lip service to the law and tell the tales of Moses and the exodus faithfully and without scorn or laughter to one's children; and then God can be expected to bless the man and his family, or at least not curse that family.

[* The infamous "eruv" is instructive. The Jews' legalists figure that it is permissible to go about one's house without having to count such walking as a limitation to the number of steps that might be made on any given Sabbath, and so they string a piece of wire around the city (but it has to be for that very purpose, for "God is Holy and he will not be mocked", e.g., a telephone line already there will not serve that purpose) and declare that encompassment to be a courtyard of the house and therefore an area wherein the practicing Jew can move about freely. It depicts a mind set that Paul finally recognized to be absurd and far from what a Living God*** would be satisfied with.]

[** It is instructive, though not immediately germane, to realize that Jesus caught the Jew in his rankest hypocrisy by noting that while the Jew was holy, that meant that every Jew was holy, but that this universal characterization was rejected by the Jewish leadership and culture as exemplified in the exclusion of Zacchaeus and Barabbas, and concerning the first of whom Jesus stated "this too is a Son of Abraham" and for the sake of the soul of the latter of whom Jesus voluntarily let his own life be taken as a substitute. But surely nothing is more emphatically Jesus' condemnation of the Jews for rejecting each other than when he takes the traitor and petty thief, Judas, into his own circle of followers and even gives him the purse strings of the treasury of the disciples, i.e., the representation of the communality of the group. As though he said: no Jew can be excluded--behold! Judas! come into my ranks and sup with me! For you too are a Son of Abraham.]

[*** By "living" we are to understand intelligent as opposed to mechanical. Paul will touch (implicitly) upon this again in the 8th chapter where we are led to understand that it is not so much the words (which may not even be spoken) as rather the heart which counts, and that the Holy Spirit "searcheth" the heart and prays on behalf of people with groans instead of words.]

And so we have here already the germ of Paul's idea that there is nothing wrong with the law per se, but only that since it is to be applied to depraved mans, the law actually becomes dysfunctional, enabling people to violate the law while at the same time being smug in their self righteousness, and whereby then the Jew, more than the gentile, proves and even exemplifies the incredibly low and even depraved moral state of all mans.

We can expand on this notion by anticipating the thrust of Paul's writing later in this epistle and see now the basis from which that will be taken. The Jew is born like any man and is raised in a culture of laws and customs as is the Gentile. Therefore the Jewish ethic is thrust upon him in the same way that it is thrust upon the gentile. But this means that we come with our selfishness and simply try to press the law and customs down upon that selfishness. Thus the character is the problem, and it is simply that of reluctance and even resentment regarding obedience and regarding sacrifice. It is only when there is a desire for a change for a new attitude that we could expect even the possibility of something like the nature of the Righteous Gentile (per Romans 2:13-16) to arise in us. But that is impossible in nature. Therefore the solution to the problem will lie in the capacity of the character of the man to be transformed by some miraculous means; for all else is merely forced compliance, which can never result in joy or even peace; and the company of which can only be pleasing to a slave driver.*

[* Which is one of the primary theses of Luther as expressed in his own preface to Romans.]

Continuing now with Chapter 3, we learn that God is certainly not satisfied in any way with what either the gentile or the Jew has produced.* They are both despicable and unacceptable. But God has not been helpless or idle in all this, and has always had a plan for the rectification of the matter. But it needed to await the "fullness of time" which is now.** The time has come for God to institute his righteousness in the place of the naked and unabashed unrighteousness of the Gentile and the hypocritical and corrupted and merely apparent righteousness of the Jew under the law.

[* The epitome for Paul may be David, the man after God's own heart, who despite his natural inclination for good, finally succumbed to his sexual drive and committed adultery and then murder in consequence of that. Thus there is no one who is good, and there is no one who is acceptable. This suggests then that the Righteous Gentile is really more of a concept rather than a concrete person, at least in the sense of some one who is uniformly righteous without the least deviation. David is proof of the error of that thought.***]

[** This phrase is actually used in Ephesians. In Chapter 3 of Romans we hear of "Divine forbearance" while in Chapter 5 Paul speaks of "the right time".]

[*** Conceptually speaking, the problem with the Righteous Gentile is the fact that there is no commitment to good per se, but only an inclination regarding this or that act. For example a person might simply feel uneasy about telling a lie or committing a theft, a burden of conscience, and therefore would rather rather tell the truth and forbear from taking that of another. But this only means that if the inclination were to shift to the other side, that the righteous person would become unrighteous. What is lacking is a commitment to good and decency which is not dependent upon inclinations. (This consideration of the commitment versus the inclination has a decidedly Kantian cast to it; and Paul can only be presumed to possess sit himself--it certainly facilitates dealing with the concept of the righteous gentile.)]

We can only speculate on the meaning of the "fullness of time". Given the depraved state of the man and the inability of the Jew to live the law given to him (due to that very depravity which the Jews enjoyed lamenting [and condemning] so much in the lives of the Gentile), it seems reasonable to assume that God wanted a span of time to pass so that the mans, who know all things only through exposure and experience, and never directly via intuition, might come to see that the legalistic society of the Jews was not an acceptable alternative to the gods and "flesh pots" of Egypt (and the Gentile world in general).* The Jews had experienced the Babylonian exile, but the result of that was the pharisaic world which was so dead as to be appalling (and resulted in such moral absurdities as the eruv [cited above]). The Maccabean revolt of fresh memory argued (given the Jewish mind set) for solid, albeit merely formal, adherence to the law and so the entire nation was sinking into the abyss of legalism and its concomitant death.**

[* It could be that this delay in the institution of God's righteousness was more personal. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the Old Testament and the traditions served God's purposes as a personal letter to the God/man Jesus, such that he would be able to see the failure of law, though good and necessary in its place (see Romans 13), and would come to see that the problem was with the nature of the man, and not with the law. In this way also then Jesus would increase "in wisdom" as well as in "stature, and in favor with God and man."]

[** Another meaning of the "right time" might be the subjugation of the Jews to the control of foreign powers, first the Greeks and now the Romans. Now the full force of alien thinking and customs were thrust upon the people in their own home.]

That is one thing that developed through time, the obvious failure of the law, given the sinful nature of all mans, as children of Adam (and thus as including the Jews). The other is perhaps more interesting, far more subtle and yet nonetheless still very much connected, namely the development of the Jewish scriptures and traditions and culture (and cultural interface) such that a maiden girl with the mind set of Mary might arise and be receptive to her "voices".* And so through time and the development of experiences and concepts and culture we have the makings of a family wherein the young man Jesus might be born and raised such that he would be able to be open and public in a way that would be startling, revealing and even redemptively so to others.**

[* In a way this is very reminiscent of the very similar young maid, Joan of Arc, but whose voices led her in a much more militant way, and who is, in my mind, the best historical evidence we have for the reality of Mary and her innocent faith which can be described either as simple or profound, or perhaps both. I.e., it is by virtue of Saint Joan that we can know for a fact that such simple faith does arise occasionally.]

[** This is a marvelous arena for fruitful speculation, especially for those interested in the rearing of children. The child, Jesus, apparently was originally awakened already as the Son of God, i.e., from the very beginning of his conscious life he realized that he was special in this way and that he had a special mission to perform and that he was to wait patiently for this to be revealed to him. We know from the second chapter of John's Gospel that the child never once tested his mother's assertion that he had divine or magical power, and that he could, for example, make an apple appear in his hand or levitate in air merely by his word. He was told of this power and told that he would be called on to utilize this power solely for the purposes of Abba, his Daddy, and that he was not to utilize it until then. And so we have the remarkable image of a child thinking that heshe has this special power, but never, as other people would most certainly have done, testing it in secret just to make sure in order that he not make a fool of himself in public by saying "take him water" when the host of a wedding was in need of wine.*** Thus we have in Jesus, thanks to his upbringing at the hand of Joseph and Mary, a man who is conscious of total power who is also a man of perfect faith and perfect obedience, and therefore is able to speak authoritatively to other mans, i.e., as one who has done the same thing, i.e., lived by faith.

[*** Perhaps the true miracle of this marvelous scene is the obedience of the servants at the wedding. To bring water when the host had demanded wine! But this is not germane to our examination of Romans and we shall leave it there.]

Returning the the main thrust of Paul's discourse (here in chapter 3), we see Jesus bringing about the righteous of God. It was time, and God acted, and he acted decisively through Jesus to produce the sort of world that he wanted. It was a world where the Righteous Gentile is the model, with this single exception; what this conceived, perhaps merely stereotypical-righteous man did naturally (and perhaps only occasionally), the Christian is to do consciously and via commitment of will, and indeed in accordance with the model of Abraham, and thus where the inclination then follows as a gift of God which cannot be earned but only accepted and appreciated. Thus by a dedication of faith, like to that of Abraham, the Christian is aware of his cooperation with God and can look forward to the time when his righteousness will be natural and spontaneous, i.e., easy, as was exemplified to Paul via the Righteous Gentile.*

[* This concept requires further development. At first the new convert will have to seek to overcome the inertia and natural reluctance of his flesh in doing good, i.e., by will power, and will often fail. The only thing that is converted, at the beginning, is his spirit. But by virtue of this conquest, God's own Spirit is able to work (through the spirit of the convert) upon the flesh of the convert and to bring about, in the "fullness of time," a clone, as it were, of Jesus himself, but as coming from a state of sin, i.e., gradually, and in different circumstances, but where finally the flesh begins to cooperate and the original and perfect creation of God begins to manifest itself, albeit always progressively as in one who is on the way, but not yet entirely there.**]

[** This seems to be Luther's conception of the role of Christian faith: by virtue of our willingness to be, and expectation of being, molded by God, i.e., by virtue of our faith, God, Who will not force transformation upon any one, is willing to produce the transformation.]

At the very end of this chapter (3) Paul hints at one of his major premises, namely that in this synthesis of (the concept of) the Righteous Gentile and the faith of Abraham, God produces the "golden mean" of the gentile and the Jew in the person of the Christian. And that furthermore this new creature will actually uphold the law.*

[* For, as indicated earlier, the only problem with the law is the fact that it is to be applied to sinful mans (and is thereby corrupted in its application); but if the man is not sinful, then there is no need for a law, although there is certainly need for information about causes and effects (as, for example, when the governor declares that a certain street is often utilized by children at play and therefore drivers there need to slow down and be more careful than they might ordinarily be. Paul develops this notion further in chapter 7).]

The reason that God's work will uphold the law has only been hinted at, and will be examined further later. Here we must be satisfied to learn that the Christian, as the union of the naturally righteous man and the conscious awareness of God's work of the man of faith, will do (finally, when fully developed) by nature and natural inclination that which the law sought to do (the enhancement of human personality) but which it could not do due to the independence and, especially, the selfishness of the man and his bent to sinning. And so we are back at Paul's central theme: it is impossible for the man, as constituted in his fallen state, to be pleasing to God, with or without a law; for the mark of the fallen state is the reluctant heart with regard to any law, and the only cheerful heart is one which ignores and deprecates the law (and at least thereby avoids the charge of hypocrasy). And it is only the cheerfully loving heart that could possibly be pleasing to God, and it is this heart which will now be provided to man through faith, i.e., the righteous Gentile will become commonplace, but always now through the same sort of faith that Abraham exemplified.*

[* At this point in the grasp of the distinction between the reluctant heart and the eager heart, and the role that faith provides in enabling God to work a transformation from the one to the other, Wesley was doubtlessly moved at the famous Aldersgate meeting, for this distinction is emphatically stated in Luther's Preface to Romans, which was being read on that fateful evening.]

So now we turn to Chapter 4 and the consideration of Abraham. Abraham is the father of the Jews (as well as some other nations).* His claim to fame is his willingness to accept the direction of God, much as did Mary, the mother of Jesus. By accepting God's direction, God, since He knew where this would lead, was able rightly to view Abraham as acceptable. The logic is not that Abraham actually becomes a perfect man (for his weakness is glaring in the face of the Egyptian threat),** but rather that through his belief in the power and dependability of God, God would be able to work through his (Abraham's) own spirit and conscious surrender to God and thereby to rejuvenate the flesh of Abraham and of Sarah his wife, such that the great Child of Promise, Isaac, God's Laughter, arrives on the scene as predicted and sets the stage for the advent of Christ. And all Abraham had to do was to trust in God, and not to fight against God. This he did always, for even in the moment of fear and doubt as to God's ability to perform (at the gate to Egypt), Abraham refused to tell a total lie, although he did succumb to the temptation enough to tell a half lie, somewhat on the order of the serpent in the Garden.***

[* And he is to be considered as the father to the Christian, for the Christian is a man who is (or who is being) transformed into the Righteous Gentile through the same faith of Abraham, though now by virtue of the clear love of God for that individual which is given substance and expression in the life and death of Christ.]

[** Where he was willing to tell a half-lie to save his skin at the court of the Egyptian Pharaoh, namely that Sarah was his sister, when she was really his wife, although she was also his half sister.]

[*** Which is the lesson the mans learned, that of subtlety, saying one thing while meaning another, but without actually lying outright or technically speaking. As when Edmund Daniel Rudisill, Jr., Methodist preacher in Georgia, USA, from the 1930's to the mid 1960's, used to hold an ugly baby up in the air and exclaim to the doting parents, "Now that's what I call a baby!" but where the subtlety is used for the purpose of the kingdom and thus without being a lie.]

Now Paul envisions a mixture of Abraham and the Righteous Gentile, for through our own faith in the promises of God, made through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, we are able to expect a transformation in our flesh such that we, too, will become good naturally (even though it may occur as a progressive development and not instantaneously) and we are able to relax in the presence of God and to be totally without fear, even though we, like Abraham, are not perfected as of yet.

[Edited through here as of 3/12/98]

Now we approach one of God's great turning-upside-downs in Chapter 5, namely: while earlier (in accordance with typical Jewish thinking and indeed consistent with moral thinking in general) it was assumed that the guilty suffered and the good prospered (or else it was some special device on the part of God, as with Job), the Christian, in contrast, is able to look at suffering merely as an opportunity for, and evidence of, growth in his Christian faith; and with the reason being that the Christian now has "the love of God shed abroad in his heart;"* and it is this heart, the Heart of Christ, which is the entire purpose of creation, i.e., that the man be equipped with such a heart. The Christian now has that heart and so is able to be at ease with regard to sufferings, for the sufferings are no longer a device or a punishment, but merely stepping stones as we ourselves fulfill the purpose of God in our lives. Hence no fear, and certainly no fear of separation from God.**

[* Which is one of the first fruits of the transformation which God works in the individual through his faith in Christ.]

[** And so therefore, there are two reasons for the joy of the Christian (according to this early part of Romans 5, i.e., verses 2 through 5: there is the joy that comes from the hope of God's glory through the faith that comes a la Abraham; and then there is this joy that comes from the realization that suffering not only is no longer to be considered a punishment as far rather it is now a tool for our development into a stronger hope.]

Having now just stated that suffering is to be viewed differently now from the Christian perspective, Paul underlines this point in verses 9 and 10 (of chapter 5) by noting that we certainly have nothing to fear from God, for if Jesus died for us while we were sinners, well then, now that we are justified by this death, it follows that we certainly will not be condemned by God, but rather may rest in our confidence of his determination to keep us safe. And so the on-going thrust of this chapter is the justification of our secure relationship with God, that even though we are sinners, still we are acceptable to God through the merit of our Lord Jesus.* **

[* This theme of fearlessness is a pervasive one with Paul and is accented again in chapters 7 and 8 and especially in the latter portions of 8.]

[** See Appendix III for a different reading of the distinction which Paul makes between justification and salvation.]

The reason that we are able to have such an outlook is due to the incredible work of Jesus, where he comes to die for us, even though we are still sinners. Now this is a marvelous thing; and the icon to be kept in mind for the purposes of emphasizing this is that of Barabbas, the murderer* for whom the lives of others are no more than tools, i.e., garbage, to be used for the enhancement of personal power and agenda.** By virtue of dying for Barabbas (read: all persons from Caesar Augustus down to the convict and common criminal, Barabbas, i.e., including me and you), Jesus was finally able to get the point across that God loves all persons and this in a very serious way, and so that there is no reason for any one to doubt that, but merely to sign on, as it were, to God and let him led us through the wilderness to the promised land.***

[* Who might be likened to the American murderer, Timothy McVeigh, who thought nothing of taking the lives of innocent people (and children) to serve his own purposes; which demonstrates the depravity of terrorist thinking in general.]

[** But who, in reality, merely shows the depravity of the man in his glaring nakedness, much as the licentious Gentiles (probably most vividly in the form of the unbridled sexuality of the homosexual of his time, for whom no one counted unless they could provide some pleasure, and then only for that time. I speak here as one who knows!]

[*** This sentiment finally found a responsive chord in the soul of the young, desperate John Wesley, whose life, so full of promise, had been a miserable failure, to the point that he was even appearing ridiculous. It finally got through, at which time then, of course, the world opens up in a new way for him to step out in, like Francis of Assisi and like Abraham, to see where his heavenly father might take him. O that we might be so filled as he that we might go out with fearlessness into whatever role that God has for us this day!]

The musings and speculations of the ages need to be laid to rest at this point. And I interrupt the discourse to make the point that the death of Jesus was for no other purpose than to convince us mans of the love of God. Such thinking is expressed in the gospel itself, when God speaks for the benefit of the mans, and not to encourage or strengthen Jesus who was firm in his mission (John 12:30). It is the fate of the man, the independent thinker who will not be told but who must figure it out on his own, it is the fate of this man that he will not learn and understand except that he see it before his eyes and distinguish it from illusion.* It is only when the extreme is presented that the man is convinced. E.g., take any triangle, and do this and that, and the geometer proves his point with universality. Likewise take any man who is in need, for example this Barabbas here, and put Jesus in the picture and help is provided. Therefore he also loves you. This is the message that comes through the life and death of Jesus. And it is the message which is given especially emphasis since Barabbas was such a terrible person. Had a less terrible person been the focus of God's love, then it is conceivable that doubts might have arisen (even in the mind of Paul) as to the universality of the love.****

[* One of the more fascinating characteristics of the human is his ability to figure things out. And an extreme example is his realization that then his finger touches his nose that it does not split into two ghosts fingers, although that is the obvious impression made, but rather that this is the result of a unification of two points of view (one for each of the two eyes) and therefore that what we see before us in space is entirely within us, for we come to realize that the finger itself, in real space, does not split, but only in the apparent space of our sighting.** See the essay: "Hume's Two Errors" on my web site for a more detailed consideration of this phenomenon.] ***

[** Incidentally, those readers who are interested in Kantian philosophy will note that this apparent space which is only in our heads, i.e., the space of the "split-finger(s)", is also the only space that we have the least contact with; and "real" space, whatever that might be thought to mean, is never given to us in the least way, any more than any "real" time also.]

[*** The point to be made in this footnote is that we can only figure out and not intuit, i.e., not see directly via the intellect, such that we might know that the finger does not split or that we are loved by God, for example.]

[**** Perhaps it was only the inventive mind of John Calvin who could take such an extreme example as Barabbas and assert that this rescue on the part of Jesus either did not result in Barabbas' subsequent conversion (a point which is disputed vigorously by the Orthodox tradition) or, if it did, Barabbas was merely one of the elect, and therefore the sinful in general should not seek any particular meaning in Barabbas' rescue; for then it only proves that some people who seem otherwise, are actually among the elect; and so it might be true for you.]

The reason then that Paul and other New Testament writers can speak of the atonement and reconciliation is because it is only now that God can be satisfied, for it is only now, through the life and death of Jesus, and his mighty resurrection, that the man can be convinced of the love of God for him and therefore that heshe can be bold enough to reach out his hand to God in faith,* and therefore, since transformation comes through that faith, that heshe can expect to become pleasing to God,** for whom the faith itself, since it does in fact lead to the transformed life (given time and opportunity of earthly development and manifestation) is counted as the accomplishment of that fact.***

[* which perhaps and presumably was merely a happenstance with Abraham.]

[** even though it is God who works the transformation, but only with the informed consent of the individual, i.e., the willing and illumined spirit; a point which is developed further below when we come to consider chapter 8.]

[*** The problem of justice (with regard to the atonement and to past sins), which is more of a human consideration than a divine one (and due to man's moral nature)****, is treated in a manner satisfactory to the moralist and hence also to the Christian thinker by Immanuel Kant, and the gist of his solution is given in an appendix (II) to this essay/gloss where Kant mentions and solves three problems inherent with any moral religion. At this juncture we can rest in the assurance that God is pleased, not with punishment, but with transformation (which alleviates the need for punishment); and this transformation is on the analogous order of the transformation of the flesh of Abraham (and Sarah) and is made possible through the faith in God's love which is proven in fact by the death of Jesus for the arch villain, Barabbas.]

[**** This is signaled expressly in the first and embedded result of the act of disobedience, for the denied fruit was of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil whereby the man, in this regard, became like God. Genesis 3:22]

It is in chapter five that we see Paul's great comparison of Adam and Christ. The point made is simple and profound. Adam, without the benefit of the icon of Christ and Barabbas, is unable to know, simple man that he is, that God loves him in spite of his sin and disobedience.* The death that occurs is the flight into the woods upon the approach of God and the use of fig leaves to hide the weakness of the man (in particular, I would think).** Thus man enters the secret world and deserts the world of openness (the world in which, in contrast, the Holy Family thrived).

[* Adam evidently understands with the threatened death (per Genesis 2:17, and understood no doubt as merely something very undesirable) that God will be the executioner; but which, as can be seen by inspection, is merely a particular reading of understanding of the text, and not really implied at all. Thus he is consumed with fear, especially of fear vis-à-vis God. This understanding was not lost on John Wesley and was most certainly not lost on Jesus himself.]

[** Kant's theory of clothing is probably very widespread and was likely held by the rabbis, namely that the male is in total truth when he is exposed sexually, for then his arousal (or non-arousal) cannot be hidden. It is imprudent for him to reveal his desire, given his fallen state of fear, for it means that others (those to whom he is sexually attracted) will have an advantage over him and can make him do their will. Instead, by virtue of clothes, the man is able to act a part that is foreign to him, e.g., (and especially) in the case of the homosexual in the eyes of the heterosexual society. Thus acting is only possible with clothes on, and it is by virtue of acting that the man in general is able to look out for his perceived interests (although the world might have been better off if this subterfuge had never begun).]

But now come Christ! and we see the possibility of a transformation, for all persons, all persons whosoever, can feel free to approach the throne of grace, just like Abraham did, and each person has reason to think that they will be accepted just as they are ("look at Barabbas," the evangelist can shout!) and that they too, like Abraham, will be led and they too, like Barabbas, will be saved and will find the perfection of Christ in a natural and real way, like the Righteous Gentile.*

[* It is revealing to understand (and this becomes clearer in chapter 8) that it is only via the faith in God's love and power that a man is willing to open up his spirit to the working of God, and it is only via this opening that God is able to work the transformation on the flesh (the body and the emotions) that is called the Righteous Gentile. And so it is necessary that this love of God be conveyed; and this is done via the death of Jesus for Barabbas, whereby, when abstracted to include also ourselves, we are able to cry with Charles Wesley: "Thou art my Lord, my God!" And hence the point is made again that it is only through the death of Jesus for the sinner that we could ever imagine that God would accept a sinner as opposed to punishing him.]

And thus an entirely new day opens in the world, for Christ has come, and the fear and sin of Adam has been defeated. For whereas all died in Adam (in fear and in private and in secret), all are made alive in Christ.

Thus the good news of Francis (Assisi), for example, is merely an echo of that of Paul, namely: all persons are in the hands of a loving God; and the bad news is that some people don't or won't realize this.

Paul closes this section of his discourse (chapter 5) by noting that even though the sins of man increased by virtue of the law given to sinful man (which is developed in chapter 7), the righteousness of God comes to all mans through Jesus and is able to overcome all this extra sin, as it were. The reason being that through the grace of God (manifested through our faith which is made possible [in a universal way]* by the love of Jesus) we don't merely wipe out this and that sin, as the Jews did with their sacrifices and their Yon Kippur services and rituals, but rather the sinfulness of man itself, i.e., the sin nature of man, is removed and so all the sins with the sinfulness itself, so that we no longer subject to sin, due to the grace of God in Christ.

[* This point is important. I will always be possible to find some person who will believe, for Abraham believed; but for the story of God's love to have a universal appeal, i.e., make an impression in the mind and heart of every single man, including the greatest skeptic, it is necessary for the human to have a sighing of God's love in an extreme case, and this is given in the voluntary death of Jesus for whomever God chose, and God chose Barabbas.]

Immediately the very natural question arises (which in modern times is called "antinomianism") why should we then not continue in sin, since it is by faith in the promises of God that we are justified in his eyes? And it is to this question that Paul turns his attention in chapter 6.

This is a phony argument, of course, as Paul quickly points out, and in reality denotes confusion as to what it is that is being accomplished by the death of Jesus and the faith that arises, for the point of the faith is the transformation which is the life led apart both from the law and from sin. So to plan to continue in sin is to accept the legalistic thinking of the Jews, only now applied to the Christians, namely since we have been justified, we cannot be lost (against our wills) and so we will go to heaven do matter what we do, so why not do evil?* So this argument fails naturally, for its conclusion, continuing in sin, contradicts the premise: we are saved in the sense that we are transformed to negate and abandon sin. The whole point of the faith is the transformation and that means the denial of sin. So we become new creatures, and it is impossible for new creatures to continue in sin, except that they then give up their faith.

[* This line of thinking and its supporting logic is part and parcel of the Baptist concept of Eternal Salvation and discussed in some detail in the essay "Essentials of Baptist Thinking" on this web site. The logic is compelling, given the erroneous premise involved, namely that since we are going to heaven, no matter what we do, it makes sense to do all that we can get away with, one of the most rational, and therefore also the most insidious arguments in the history of the Christian faith, and one that will remain forever as an example of pre-transformational, prudent thinking.]

Now (in chapter 7) Paul turns to look squarely at the matter of law in general. What is the purpose of the law? Why do we have law? Why does God not simply work his miracle directly?

The law serves us as a master or tutor does to children, as dependent people.* It shows us the correct way and bridles our desires and passions. And once we are grown and are in control** we have no need of the law. So, by analogy, once we become new creatures in Christ then there is really no point in the law, for what the law requires is contained in the only law that the Christian is subject to, i.e., the law of independent thinking for the sake of community, i.e., the Golden rule (see Romans 13:8-9)***

[* Paul uses the example of a woman, a person of subordination in his time, and shows how she is free of the law's constraint when she is no longer a dependent or an appendage of someone else, i.e., a wife.]

[** This is made clearly in Galatians (I think?) when Paul speaks of a child being the heir to a fortune, but still being treated as a child until heshe grows old enough to look out and think for himself.]

[*** As we shall see upon reaching chapter 13, the Christian does not obey the law per se because heshe is commanded by the governor, but even here merely assumes that the governor's rulings are in conformity with which any person would want in order to have orderly discourse and intercourse with others, and so is complied with only under that premise. Thus the independence of the Christian is profound. See the essay on the Golden Rule on this web site.]

In fact, given the sinful nature of the man (and this is a necessary consideration, indeed the primary one, for understanding Paul's conception of the law), the law is actually dysfunctional and prompts us to violation in precisely the same way that the young are motivated by dares to do things which they know to be wrong or even to be stupid.*

[* Augustine reports stealing fruit (as a teenager) from the tree of a neighbor, when he had equally delectable and enticing fruit in his own yard, the rationale being that the neighbor's fruit was forbidden him.]

Now we come to a critical junction (in the latter part of chapter 7): Paul is himself a new creature, and yet he finds that his flesh is bent to sin. He knows what is the right thing and wants to do the right thing, but finds that he actually does the opposite. Now this is a very serious concern to him, as might be expected, and to every Christian who thinks to have experienced the new birth, and so the question must arise: what is the meaning of this?*

[* In my own life, due to a very quick temper, even though I am able in many cases to tame that temper, suddenly and without warning it flares up and I am in an altercation with someone, which I will later realize was stupid or at least in violation of my principle of the new life, and which I will rue and resolve not to do again. And so even though I am attuned toward one behavior, I find myself again and again falling into the old pit of sinful behavior and manifestation of a complex of superiority or self-righteousness or whatever it might be that drives me in the flesh.]

Paul observes that it is by the fact of Jesus that we are able to avoid succumbing to despondency regarding this continuing bent to sin. And in this frame of mind he leads us into chapter 8, which represents the climax of his thinking. We are transformed people, and even though our bodies are bent to sin, we are not discouraged and indeed for this very reason: it is by virtue of the fact that our spirits and minds are attuned to Christ, i.e., that we know what is good and that we want what is good, that we have our peace and joy and assurance. For through our willing spirits God will bring about the transformation of our flesh, unruly though it be, and so it is the sincere and earnest desire to love as Christ loves that is the evidence of our salvation, for that desire will not be left unsatisfied.

The supreme evidence of God's acceptance for the Christian is the so-called witness of the spirit. Here the internal knowledge of the desire to love as Christ loved, i.e., the love of God shed abroad in the heart via the Holy Spirit, is coupled with the capacity to cry Abba-Daddy (in a sincere and spontaneous way) to let the Christian know of God's love, even in the face of great tribulation and suffering.

Indeed it is the call of God that we join Christ in his glory by suffering in the same way that Christ suffered, and so this is not a mark of disfavor, but on the contrary of God's determination that Jesus will be the first born of many brothers and sisters.

The fact of our own suffering, Paul tells us, is to be put into the larger context of God's work in and for the world. We are the ultimate aspect of creation itself, where the world is struggling to give birth to the new creature and to enter into the new age.

And indeed so far are we from suffering any disfavor that even if our spirits are numbed and dulled in some way such that we cannot cry out and pray as we should, even here the spirit of God prays for us, the spirit which knows our true and vital intention and desire.

In a somewhat oblique way Paul goes so far as to distinguish a rejection of Christ under the duress of overpowering circumstances from what we might today call the Demas- or premeditated disavowal of Christ.* The Christian has no fear whatsoever, for he is to consider himself as having been chosen by God from the foundation of the earth to serve as Christ and nothing can alter that fact so as to bring about a dissolution of that tie through Christ. Paul ends the chapter on a lyrical note, namely that it is simply impossible for any Christian to be separated from Christ in any way.

[* This passage is often misunderstood as though it were an academic treatise and included a discussion on free will versus determinism. But in fact Paul actually uses here the most normal language to comfort people who are concerned that God might have forsaken them. It is the question of the meaning of suffering. And Paul is trying his best to allay such fears, especially the fear that some one might indeed renounce Christ under the immediate pain of suffering.]

Essentially then, and as a recap: neither suffering nor even sin can be evidence of God's rejection, for God's plan from the beginning of the creation was to produce the Christian, i.e., the one who is transformed (or is being transformed) to love as Christ did, so that he is merely the first of many like him. And not even a denial of Christ (under duress) is to be counted, for the Spirit of God knows our souls better even that we do, especially when suffering, and we need never fear one thing, namely that Christ does not love us or that he does not claim us. Absolutely! Period!*

[* Essentially then, and to repeat the point: even suffering goes to serve that we are to be like Christ and to be with Christ, even when this suffering goes so far as to numb us.]

But then how about the Jews? Weren't they given all the promises? And is God not now deserting them for the sake of the Gentiles? Paul takes up this question in chapters 9 through 11 and uses the opportunity to reveal the "great mystery" which was God's plan through the ages.

In the first place, in chapter 9, Paul speaks as a Jew to Jews:

This question is a necessary element of the Christian faith, since the faith arises through the Jewish life and culture. It is not a fair complain to suggest that because God loves the Gentile that he does not love the Jew. In the first place Paul himself is a Jew and he is in the hands of God as a Christian, and so some of the Jews are already at home in the new faith. But further, suppose that God has decided to give to the gentiles what the Jews think to attain by their works, namely the favor of God! Is that not his prerogative as sovereign creator of the world? And if God chose Jacob over Esau as the Jewish scriptures themselves attest to, well then why can he not then by equal right as creator voluntarily simply give his gift to any one he chooses, e.g., to the Gentile? Is that not his right as maker? and who are we to argue with the potter, as it were, since we are the result of his handiwork?

Going on Paul notes that the Jew is indeed zealous and full of good intentions. But these are directed in an entirely false direction. For the fact of the matter is that it is not through the law and obedience to it that God is satisfied, but only through the transformation of the flesh, where then the gentile and the Jew will be on equal footing and there will be an end to the distinction. I.e., while the Jew may have lived in the past in such a way as to broadcast a message of the favor of God, we see now that it is and was God's intention that everyone have that special treatment, and this is what is going on at this time. Thus it is necessary that the message be preached to all people so that all people might come to know Christ and to become like him in their relationships with God and with each other.

Indeed we shall see, Paul continues in chapter 11, that really the Jews' resistance to the gospel serves the purposes of God. For if the Jew had not rebelled against God in this matter, then this means that the gospel of faith would never have been proclaimed and all persons would have had to become Jews (circumcised) in order to enter into God's presence and his kingdom. But instead, due to the Jews' recalcitrance the gentiles are now able to enter directly on their own faith, like Abraham of yore. And the (perhaps even) comical thing will be that the Jews will enter also, just like the Gentiles, but only have the gentiles are become transformed, and so God's purpose in ending all distinctions in the flesh will have been accomplished and the age will come to a close.

With this chapter Paul ends his mighty treatise on the purposes of God in the world and how it is that the Jews and the Christians play a part in this drama and that God's purpose is being accomplished presently and in this manner, and so that the Christian has every reason to be of good cheer and to rejoice even in his suffering, for heshe is in service to a sovereign God whose pleasure it is to delight his children through communion with him, which is made possible through the obedience and death and mighty resurrection of Jesus.

Beginning now with chapter 12 and continuing through chapter 14, Paul sets out to describe in practical terms the nature of the New Birth. The Christian seeks to love to the extent possible and to live in peace with all people. In a very important Chapter 13, he indicates that there is no conflict between the Christian and the governor, and what the governor commands the Christian wishes to do anyway as a matter of love,* and so all actions on the part of the Christian are to be undertaken only as derivations from the law of love.

[* This is clearly a justification for the Christian to judge of the legitimacy of government,for the government is God's way of producing an order in a fallen world, and also if providing information for the Christian to love more effectively, as, for example, when we are told to drive more slowly in some area because children are at play. This the Christian will do anyway, independently of the fear of penalty for violation, for the Christian is moved and directed toward love.

It is in chapter 14 that Paul establishes the great liberty of the Christian, which is almost unfathomable to the Jew, namely that nothing is holy or unholy, or clean or unclean, save only the heart alone. And so therefore all our actions are to be derived from the law of love, and there is nothing else which can possibly rule the Christian. Hisher autonomy in Christ is unlimited.*

[* This is part of a typical Pauline thesis that all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, i.e., not all things are purposeful and serve as a function. And for the Christian the intention and goal is the manifestation of the heart of Christ, and so all things are to be measured and evaluated in light of that great purpose.]

In chapter 15 Paul defends his "corralling" of the gentiles,i.e., that he is seeking to bring the gentile in. The point is that we need to get out and to find those who are apart from Christ and to bring them into the fold, and not to get involved with disputes, but instead seek to spread the peace that comes in God.

In closing Paul speaks personal words to individuals that he knows, which is a typical Pauline procedure and demonstrates the love in his heart for all persons, much as Jesus stopped along his route to the great confrontation of the ages at Jerusalem in order to help people who were in need along the way.

The "Turning-Upside-Down" on the part of Paul:

1. the righteousness will come through faith, and not through adherence to the law.

2. the Righteous Gentile and not the Jew is the model of the result of faith.

3. Suffering is not evidence of God's displeasure but of our own development.

4. God's purpose has never been justice so much as it is rectification and transformation, and restoration of the openness between man and God as was exemplified in the Garden story.*

[* In defense of this these, the reader may want to turn to the analysis of Kant's treatment of the three problems of any moral religion which will appear soon on this web site, perhaps as an appendix to this commentary/gloss.]

5. God does not love the Jew more than the gentile, but all persons equally. Indeed the point of the special treatment of the Jews in history was merely to show what special treatment meant but then in order that all persons might be treated in that special, loving way.

 

 

Appendicies

At a different site I have included some draft appendixes to this work. These can be accessed directly via:

I. A Comparison of Paul's Proof of the Existence of God and that of Kant.

II. A Theory of Atonement Which is Based on Moral Concepts.

III. Paul's Conception of Justification, Salvation and Sanctification.

IV. Romans 1 and Homosexuality.

V. An Exchange Between Two Christians Concerning Homosexuality.

To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)

To The Table Of Contents on Romans