Ben Wyatt

In which[1] I build and destroy a strawman of my own design, and set the stage for a non-sequential review of Romans. I don't entirely trust the following conclusions to their full and logical ends. In the spirit of Tim's message from 5/11/08, any correction is appreciated. [2]

One of the less intellectually porous attempts at refutation of scripture (read: still dead wrong, utterly indefensible, hardly worth typing) is that the Bible can't seem to make up its sweet little mind on just what exactly is necessary in order to obtain this eternal life everybody is seeking. Mother Teresa is in, Hitler is out. Beyond that, everybody go verse hunting, and we'll see you at the pearly gates.[3]

[stands back, peers upward] It's a big strawman, alright. Tall. Fluffy. If it only had a brain ...

Yet guess what, Christian? You are the spiritual heir of a 2000+ year tradition of brethren who cannot stop fighting about this very issue, and the water is even muddier than when it all began More blood has been spilled as a direct result of misunderstandings over the means to salvation than over Brett Favre's retirement.[4] Satan's got a thick playbook, and for this play, he pulls both metaphorical guards The faith/works argument trips up believers and non-believers constantly.

More than its intellectual roots, most believers to some degree experience the personal roots to this misunderstanding. We[5] don't feel like the old creation has gone and the new has come in our daily lives. Epistles like James and 1 John convict the living daylights out of us, and we either rip them from our Bibles, or try SO hard to live exactly like they say that we revert to a legalism, then read Ephesians and either feel warm and tender about our faith, or rip it from our Bibles. Rinse, lather, repeat. The steady-state equilibrium is that we become selective readers, and dependent upon scripture emphasizing one theme or the other. We lose nuance, ignore the textual critic crying in the wilderness, and but for the grace of God, slip into error.

[stands back, peers upward] Holy hay bales, Batman! It seems there are now two of them!
[replies the caped crusader] Yes, my city-slicking cud-chewing chum. It appears the dastardly Scarecrow is intent on destruction of the entire blogosphere with his fiendish men of straw.

We see this sentiment [6] characterized in Romans 7. The meat:

15For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I dub this the nodding passage, because Christians read it, and their heads start nodding.[7] We see Paul in the exact same struggle that we find ourselves engaged, and nothing is quite so soothing as solidarity with Tarsus' favorite tent maker. Then we either stop reading because it took us 15 minutes to wade through those 11 verses and Quiet Times don't grow on trees, or start chewing on chapter 8, starting with the Therefore to end all Therefore's. It seems like a whole new ballgame, and not just because we have crossed the literary halfway point.

1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 12So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons[e] of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.[8]

So we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. If we live according to the flesh, we will die. Good thing the law of the Spirit set us free from the law of sin and death. So what happened to all of the business from chapter 7 regarding the flesh serving the law of sin? That does not sound like something chapter 8 indicates should even really exist, much less suggest one can live through. So what''s missing?

There's probably a fancier name, but for now, Semitic Totality will suffice:

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the "body of Christ") and rabbinic literature.[9]

Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being." Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be."

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111] [10]

If there was something you were not meant to skim, it was the last two sentences. The notion is that ancient Jewish understanding could not differentiate between faith and the resultant works. See Romans 4, where Abraham acted, and "his faith was credited to him as righteousness." Also look at the terms on which Christ spoke to the Pharisees. Sure, he told them that the outside was clean but the inside was dirty, yet this is more of an external appearance vs. reality instead of a flesh vs spirit contrast anyway. Besides, when he pointed to their hearts, he was always doing so in direct reference to actions they had or had not taken. This Semitic Totality, whether absolutely correct, colors everything Jesus said, and we get Gospels written not only with a different language, but with different cultural understandings. Translators help the former, but the latter is up to us and the Spirit.

This has a broad range of applications [11], the most important of these is to narrow the ground upon which we understand the ability of the heart of a believer to prove inconsistent with their actions while at the same time reinforcing Sola Fidelis. This corroborates significant tides of scripture, the former conforming to the 'James/1 John thesis' and the latter holding to the 'Galatians/Ephesians thesis'.[12] More importantly, it lends the Epistles form a more cohesive message.

This doctrine [resurrection of the dead] was considered so important for two reasons: First, because the Tanakh assumes a concept which has been dubbed by some modern scholars as the Semitic Totality Concept. Where Greek thought was that a person was a spirit who happened to be housed (or imprisoned!) in a body, Hebrew thought was that a person is a spirit and a body and a soul (lit. a breath, the animating life-force), so that the loss of any of them made for less than a complete person. Therefore, in order to truly receive the promises that the Eternal One had made to Israel’s fathers, one had to be Resurrected whole in the ‘Olam HaBa, the World (or Age) to Come. This concept is assumed by the NT authors (cf. John 11:24ff, 1 Co. 15, 2 Co. 5:1-4), and those who denied the Resurrection, such as the Sadducees, were said by Yeshua to be “mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat. 22:29). It is sad indeed that the spirit of the Sadducees long ago infected so much of the Body of the Risen Messiah.[13]

What we see here is a contrast of the Jewish and Greek (=Gentile) beliefs. Rather than framing the Epistles in a manner that the Gentiles (and by extension the modern West) could understand, consistency with the manner of Christ's teachings is maintained. The message of the Epistles is specific to the recipients of the letter, so they needed to understand that God did not see them as minds trapped within bodies, but as a unified whole. To do so, Paul, Peter, James, John and any other Epistlers[14] hammer the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation AND the nature of a life and a body of people that have that salvation. Both are often done in the same Epistle.

This leads back to Romans and Paul the Schizoid. Semitic Totality fits Romans 8 like a glove. Romans 7? Well, let us look at Romans 7. In verse 9, because of the commandments, sin comes alive, and Paul dies. This is presumably as Paul is learning the Law while a youth and/or when it got written on his heart while much younger. So Paul commences doing what he hates, even though he does not want to, to the point where it is the sin that is doing it, starting the war and making him captive to sin. Who will deliver him from this body of death? Hooray, Jesus for delivering him.[15] THEREFORE ...

See that. Despite extensive use of the present tense,[16] the order and content seem insistent upon dating the vast majority of chapter 7 prior to an individual's salvation. Then chapter 8 happens, and it's like salvation makes the Christian a whole different person, basically because it does. Conflict averted.

As a general point, Christians seem to defend the faith/works issue on a verse by verse basis. This is all well and good, but is what we in policy debate liked to call defensive argumentation[17], when it should be our goal to establish the framework for the discussion of the issue. Incorporating cultural understanding of the faith/works relationship seems the best way to handle such a discussion.

To anybody that reads Romans 7 and nods, and isn't thinking about a time prior to the Spirit being sealed in you, you probably should not be nodding.[18]

[1] Why would my deodorant suggest I speak to a doctor before use if I have kidney disease? What exact relationship do my kidneys have with my armpits? Oh, and while you're here and reading an arbitrary endnotes, I should let you know that I'm using endnotes to avoid/allow me to create needless clutter. Also my humor offends some people. Primarily those with taste.
[12 Except grammatical. I ain't needed no grammar, and they done learned me to write American good, and so forth.
[3] The pearly gates are not a direct reference to my two front teeth, as they are neither pearly enough, nor per Matthew 7:13, are they nearly narrow enough.
[4] And that is just plain silly.
[5] Henceforth, all we's are corporate in nature, and not especially indicative of any particular personal belief or struggle. There. That ought to throw you off the scent. Pops always said the best defense is a good offense. Or did he say the best defense was a 46? Now that I mention it, was that Pops, or Buddy Ryan? Um, sorry Pops. How come every time I attempt to clarify a commonly used pronoun, I end up confusing Pops with Buddy Ryan?
[6] Personal roots of a faith/works dichotomy, not Batman and Robin's alliterative dismay.
[7] Nodding 'yes,' not Haddaway nodding. This is also commonly (read: not near any authority figure) referred to as the doo-doo passage. Helser Team: love it or quarantine it.
[8] I wanted to quote a shorter portion of the passage, but that felt like butchery. Instead, I have marked in bold sections of particular interest, which is almost as fun as highlighting prospectuses ... I mean, which I have never done ... erm ... please don't hurt me, FINRA.
[9] I could not locate a suitable translation to verify the point made with the Numbers verse. The other two required literal translations, ie not NIV/ESV. The relevance of the 'body of Christ' reference eludes me for now. The reference to rabbinical literature is a favorite of this author, and I think he does it in an appropriately selective manner (when seeking cultural context).
[10] Full text can be found here. It's a really neat article, and a fun, if not professionally designed or courteous website.
[11] Includes, but is not limited to more room to reject dualism. This is an area of special ignorance for me.
[12] The title of each 'thesis' is a generalization. I do that. A lot.
[13] The full text is here. Good cultural background, but there may be theological error.
[14] I hope this is a word. Lord, let this be a word, and I'll start using it in phone calls.
[15] Presumably from the last Damascus road blinding NOT caused by a Hamas rocket. Admittedly, he may also be referring to the resurrection body, in which case forget I posted anything.
[16] In the English translation. Greek tense structure is ... well ... all Greek to me.
[17] Pops always said the best defense ...
[18] Nor should you be up at 3:30 writing blog posts. Oh, wait. That's me. Now that I mention it, so was the nodding.

Posted by Ben Wyatt at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As much as my train of thought may be riding on triangular wheels, it did have an extended stop at my last post for engine repairs. Reading it before you read this may help me to make sense.

We are faced with the problem that goodness, as good as it may be, can impede the process of sanctification, not to mention the understanding of fallen man neccessary to understand the Gospel. But first, perfection from a different angle.

As a teenager, I held a model of sin as any divergence from a perfect state. The interesting thing about this otherwise reasonable definition is that I rarely stipulated that said divergence was only sinful if feasibly avoided. This was purposeful. Let us now consider Christ from this definition.

The definition above implies that perfection involves no divergence on any level from a perfect state. (From here onward, the perfect state shall be replaced by the will of God). This means that on every level, God's ordained path for Christ was met, from the smallest heartbeat at each moment, to the least significant step at precision of the quantum level, to the slightest subconscious thought. Especially thinking about atomic precision, Christ and his perfection were absurdly improbable from a mathematical point of view (the best point of view there is).

Jesus said to him, �Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. This verse has new meaning in this light. Now, Jesus is asking if this man truly understands that he engaging in conversation with the most improbable collection of cells in the history of the universe, and that every single breath he lets out is ordained by God.

This illustrates the elusive nature of perfection. The question remains of pursuing the goodness that best leads to sanctification. Here, German philosopher Immanuel Kant can be of service. Kant defines two imperatives, the categorical, and the hypothetical. I will simplify these concept, partially because I'm not familiar with them 100%, but partially because they have little to offer the conversation beyond my narow definitions.

The first, and most famous of the two is the categorical imperative. It (or at least its second formulation) states that all rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. In English, it is the structured intent of an action that determines its morality, and the end result means nothing. In application, one is obligated to tell a known murderer the location of his prey if asked, because it is not moral to lie, but the result that the person may die has no bearing on the morality.

Romans 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

So good may not be from God if not from faith. So, without the right mind produced by faith, without God, it is impossible to do as God wills.

The second of the two is the hypotheical imperative, which states that all rational actions must not neccessarily be justified in themselves, but as means to an end. Under this imperative, one is obligated to lie to the murderer, so that the prey may be saved.

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.

Interestingly, the two are defined as opposites, with the categorical focused on ignoring the situation in favor of the absolute law, and the hypothetical only focused on the end of the scenario. This doesn't stop us from using both standards simultaneously in order to examine morality. The categorical (Romans 14) compells us to act in faith and after hearing God's will. The hypothetical (1 Corinthians 9) compells us to act in pusuit of God's kingdom. The exclusion of EITHER God's will OR His kingdom can quite simply be regarded as sin. All that work for something so simple ... maybe I should sleep ...

Posted by Ben Wyatt at 02:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For the sake of readability, my thoughts are in two separate posts. If I make sense, read my next post, and I may make even more sense.

Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, �Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Sometimes, I wonder when I moved to the Twilight Zone. One of that show's more popular episodes, which is actually based off a science fiction short shory by Jerome Bixby, revolves around a six year old boy who simultaneously has the power of life and death over a community, and can read their thoughts. He whims things that no reasoning adult would stomach, yet is unsupervisable, given that all attempts at behavior modification are fatal. The only response is for the community to call the blizzard in July that kills most of the crops a "good thing."

Similarly, it seems that it's always a good thing that God introduced XYZ trial (I won't debate the merits of trials, rather I merely intend to illustrate a linguistic point), or that So-and-So made that decision that doesn't make 100% sense. So much in this world is obviously good, maybe I should just sit back and let the world be good. Isn't contentment sweet?

Note that all of the above is deceit, and it stems fom the language of goodness. A lot of people in my life do a lot of good things. These things are really good. Some of them are great. Knowing my readership, it is safe to say that you the reader do some amazing things for God's kingdom. I'll admit to doing a small share of decent things.

Good and perfect are not the same. In fact, they can be opposed. We've all heard, "Yeah, but I'm a good person." Rightly or wrongly, our fear of offending others prevents us from vigorously attacking this misperception as we should. Deep down, we as a creation ARE good (God said so after Day 6), even to the extent that only the verifiable sociopath lacks goodness. Yet, despite our goodness, we are opposed to perfection. That opposition, one could call it contentment of a sort, is missed by the world, and even by those redeemed far too often for my liking.

[Jesus said] "You know the commandments: �Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.�� The man said to him, �Teacher, I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.� As Jesus looked at him, he felt love for him and said, �You lack one thing. Go, sell whatever you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.� But at this statement, the man looked sad and went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.

The man questioning Jesus has kept the Law to the letter. Pretty good, eh? He's so flipping content with the Law, he can't love his neighbor or God. He kept every portion of the law meant to presage the only person he should have ever wished to have met, and he 'blows it in the interview.'
"You can see my qualifications in my resume; pretty impressive, eh?"
"Amazing, we just ask that our employees pass a drug test ..."
"DRUG TEST?! Thanks but no thanks."

Now consider that this man is not allegory, but flesh and blood, and his spiritual progeny abounds modern society, even among believers.

Posted by Ben Wyatt at 01:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)