Romans Commentary project, Chapter 1

A few months ago, J's Father and I agreed to send back and forth a collaborative commentary on Romany in an effort to address some theological points at which we found ourselves in friendly disagreement. (Specifically, the modern significance of ethnic Israel, eschatology, and the apparatus of salvation.) I've hacked rather badly at some Greek here, stolen freely from N.T. Wright, and blundered through topics far too complex for me to even bother attempting. It's been great. I can't remember a project ever being so enriching. I'll post what I've come up with so far, because I'm finding that I don't have enough time to write a weekly blog entry and a weekly commentary update. I'd appreciate any comments you have to offer. (Calvin especially, please double check my Greek notes...I'd hate to find that I'm abusing my claim to the language) I need honest criticism about what follow, not because it will ever be published or lectured publicly, but so that I don't wander off into catastrophic error while terrain too difficult for me.

Romans 1

1 Paul a servant of the Messiah Jesus, called an apostle appropriated unto God’s euangelion

doulos could also be rendered slave, but though it might be a more accurate description. I’ll be using Hebraic language throughout on purpose, translating Christ “Messiah,” law “Torah,” and peace “Shalom” among others where Paul refers to a clearly Jewish concept that has survived in transliteration to us and might be vivified by that usage. It will also be a part of my interpretative case to argue that Christ, far from being some sort of surname, is both a title and in some sense incorporatative. I had half a mind to render kletos “elected” rather than “called,” but don’t want to imply the election language of the determinism debate that’s quite unrelated. It is worth noting that kletos is not called in the sense of “called by name,” but “called” in the elective sense, echoing the thread of Judaic theology as Israel being God’s “chosen” or “elected” people throughout the O.T. aphorismenos is not rendered “appropriated” against “set apart” but as a restatement of the same idea. I’ll be translating eis as “unto” throughout simply to mark it, and clarifying as needed. I’ll also transliterate euangelion and its various cognates to avoid the heavy-handedness of “gospel” and lack of a verbal form for “good news.” 

2 (the euangelion) which he forepromised through his prophets in the holy writings

Forepromised is proepengeilato, which could be stated more grammatically, but not without splitting the word. Important to note for later development that Paul insists the euangelion was exactly what the prophets did forepromise, not a surprise development unrelated to Israel’s promised eschatological hopes. The word forepromised is the prefix pro and the noun epangelion, which is enormously important in the theology of Galatians. (I think it’s developed in Romans as well, though not to the same extent. We don’t catch it in English, but euangelion (good news) and epangelion (promise) are cousins from angelos. (message, messenger) I chose to translate graphais as writings because the body of literature held holy by 1^st C. Jews would have included more than what we know as the Old Testament scriptures, including the apocrypha and several books of rabbinical writings.

3 concerning his son born from David’s seed according to the flesh

Son of God probably primarily as relates to his Messianic, not divine, identity. (Not that these are unrelated, but it’s not Paul’s agenda to demonstrate Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, rather as the promised Messiah, to which a promised appellation was son of God, but without the eventually-worked out conclusion that implied his membership in the Godhead.) Sonship from David also correct. According to the flesh is sarka, not soma, which will have to be distinguished later.

4 determined God’s son in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, the Messiah Jesus our Lord

Designated or appointed would also be appropriate translations of oristhentos, and reinforces sonship as a Messianic concept. In power (dunamei) is contrasted elsewhere by Paul as the means of demonstrating the gospel, opposed to lofty speech or sophistical wisdom. Jesus is determined the Messiah by an act, and by a mighty act (same word as the miracles of Jesus) not by private gnosis. I don’t know why Paul chose pneuma hagiosunes (spirit of holiness) and not pneuma hagion (holy spirit) and I’d welcome any insight. Presumably that’s the same agency? By means of the resurrection, which is an enormous and largely ignored theme in Romans, especially as it pertains to Jesus’ Messianic identity. Subject at the end for emphasis. This is, in the one sense, Paul’s thesis. Everything else that he says comes back to Jesus being demonstrated Messiah and kurios by the resurrection.

5 through whom we received grace and mission unto faithful obedience among all the gentiles for the sake of his name

Charin is related to grace, forgiveness, and gift. I’ll usually translate grace and mark when necessary. Mission is apostolen, a different form of apostolos. hupakoen pisteos is better as faithful obedience than the obedience of faith, and it does matter how one sets the precedent for the subjective genitive of pistis, which is later enormously important. En should be among, not to the Gentiles.

6 in which ye are even yourselves called of the Messiah Jesus

vv. 5-6 need to be read consecutively. The name of Jesus as “Messiah” has a corporate sense which includes but also means more than the denotation of the person Jesus. I believe this to be an important concept throughout the book, as it demonstrates the community of the believers in the Messiah as himself the reconstituted Israel. Called is again kletos, echoing the Jewish theology of election.

7 to all which are in Rome God’s beloved, called saints, grace to you and shalom from God our father and the Lord Jesus the Messiah.

Paul finally gets around to the destination address. It’s worth noting that if Paul had access to any form of the written synoptics or the oral tradition from which they came, he would know agapetos was a term in the gospels reserved exclusively for Jesus. If you aren’t aware, it helps to know that the adjective hagios (holy) in the plural becomes saints as a substantive noun. Eirene does mean peace, but Paul almost certainly meant the full and holistic connotations of what we mean by shalom rather than the English word “peace.”

8 First I give thanks to my God through the Messiah Jesus concerning all of you, since your faith is proclaimed in the whole cosmon

There is an untranslated particle men in vv.8 that is used in Greek to contrast two sentences when paired with de. The contrast sentence is either v. 13, with the effect, “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but I need to share with you the euangelion I’m giving everywhere else.” Or v. 12, meaning “I’m thankful for you, for whom I constantly pray…but here’s a spiritual gift, which is the truth I share everywhere else, etc.” The biggest question that comes out of it is, Is Paul being encouraged with the Romans, or are the Romans being encouraged together with themselves, according to the grammar? I don’t know (or remember) nearly as much as I should about the timing of Paul’s trips to Rome, but it may be important for us as we go on to determine whether Paul is addressing a church which he has met and sown personally, and what sort of tensions (if they can be drawn out) he is writing into. Specifically, whether he writing to a Gentile, Jewish, or mixed audience. I’ll probably transliterate cosmos (kosmos), which has some facility of meaning between, system, order, world, and universe. It might be helpful to know that the other options for “world” Paul chooses not to use when he writes kosmos are ge (land) and oikoumene (the inhabited world, perhaps the Roman Empire). 

 9 For my witness is God, to whom I serve in my spirit in his son’s euangelion, that I make your remembrance constantly.I’ll try to note soul/spirit/heart as well; in my spirit here is in pneumati mou, which, as far as I can tell, is the straightforward meaning of how we also would say “I serve in my spirit” i.e. our intangible will and existence. 

 10 Always in my prayers asking how already then I might be well-directed in God’s will to come to youeuodothesomai is a vague word, could also be rendered “have things go well,” “earn” or “make possible.” I chose a bulkier but more part-by-part translation. 

 11 For I yearn to see you, that I might share some spiritual gift unto your strengtheningcharisma pneumatikon is the spiritual gift; I presume the gift is “being encouraged by what’s common to our faith, which is what I preached among the gentiles, which is THESIS” I’d hear a case for the spiritual gift being something unrelated, like a mighty Pentecostal sign, but I don’t thank that accounts for the way in which the grammar of v.8 ties into the grammatical construct of v. 12 or v. 13, or both. Unto your strengthening is an articular infinitive, which has no way of being translated directly into English. (It would be something along the lines of “unto your to be strengthened.”) There are a couple different ways to address that, and there’s much debate on the best way. I don’t remember what they are at the moment, and if we come across a more significant example I’ll get off my behind and look them up.

 12 And this is to be encouraged together among you through what among each other is of your faith and mineencouraged-together is one word, sumparaklethenai, a cognate of that slippery and fascinating word parakalein, which depending on which translation you read, either means to exhort, encourage, or comfort. (This is very important in Corinthians.) I chose to translate allelois to each other instead of one another to sustain the effect that Paul is talking about something (the spiritual gift which is the euangelion) which is common, not just to whatever parties he is addressing in Rome, but also between Rome, Paul, and all others having faith. Here begins a series of te…kai constructions, which link two objects in a “both…and” sort of way, starting with “your faith” and “mine”  

13 But I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that often I forepurposed to come to you, and was hindered while going, so that I might have some fruit among you even as also among the remaining GentilesThe ou thelo humas agnoein is one of Paul’s trademarks, showing up in Corinthians and in Romans, always introducing a new concept or topic. Here I think it’s more linked to Pauls’ being debtor to the Gentiles than to his intentions of coming…we just get to his indebtedness, and hence his gospel, via his willingness to come in person. Among you as among the remaining Gentiles is another te…kai.

14 Both Hellene and Barbarian, both wise and foolish I am debtor

te…kai, te…kai. It’s worth commenting that Pauls’ unique apostleship to the Gentiles is defined in Acts, although I hardly suspect that’s new information to any of you. Also note that the statement “I am a debtor” is related to I do not wish you to be ignorant, not just a throwaway comment. Could also be translated, I am obligated.

15 Thus the willingness according to me also to you which are in Rome to euangel.

What a hideous sounding sentence. Is it so ugly it’s unclear? I hope not. We get the statement of what the euangelion is coming up, in response to Paul’s being a debtor to the Gentiles and his statement of the euangelion as righteousness by faith being the spiritual gift he wishes to impart.

16 For I am not ashamed of the euangelion, for it is God’s power unto salvation to all believing, both to the Jew and Greek

Not ashamed by the gospel or on the gospel also fine here. It’s a transitive verb with a direct object. Hopefully our reading of the rest of the text clears up the hugely important question of whether Paul intended to have this verse read with the stress of the voice on the word “salvation,” “all,” “believing,” or “both.” I hate that there’s no better way to translate believing. It is the participial form of pisteo, which is easily rendered faith everywhere else. I’ll try to note whenever pistis shows up in some form other than faith. So Paul really says to all faithing, both to the Jew and Greek. (Another te…kai)

17 For God’s righteousness in him is revealed by faith unto faith, even as is written, And he who is righteous by faith will live.

I’ll always translate (if I remember) dikaiosune theou as God’s righteousness, which gets very important in chapter 3. By faith unto faith is ek pisteos eis pistin. The quotation is from Habbakuk, in answer to Habbakuk’s questions “when will you hear cry for deliverance?” and “how is it, everlasting one, we die?” As to whether “by faith” is the agency by which the righteous lives, or denotes the sort of righteousness the righteous “one” has…no idea. Dikaios, which we’ll talk about as we go later, is also the same root for just, or justified, so two more possible translation could be And he who is justified by faith will live, or He that is justified will live by faith. Whichever way, it is Paul’s thesis, one he believes rooted in the Hebrew O.T.

18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven upon all irreverence and injustice of men holding down the truth in injustice

Revealed here is apokaluptetai, the same word as v. 17, (as in the apokalupsis, the title Revelation) and one of what I’d call the three central pillars of Jewish “theology.” (Monotheism, Election, and Apocalyptic Eschatology) It will be an ongoing project to see how these three themes are reworked in Paul’s theology of the Christian message. Injustice is adikia, and Dik is the central idea of this section. It is the dikaios that lives by faith, justification is dikaiothentes, the righteousness now being made known is dikaiosune, and here in the apocalyptic passage Paul indicts those holding down the truth in adikia. It’s extraordinarily interesting that within Christendom there are now two polarized worldviews, one which is deeply concerned with and acting for righteousness, but suspicious of the work for “justice” on the other side, and another that is deeply concerned with and acting for “justice,” but made uncomfortable by the idea of “righteousness” and not really sure what it means. (That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s an exaggeration that aptly describes the difference between Lima Christian School and Gates Presbyterian Church) In Greek these separated ideas are summed up in one word, dik, and I think that to understand Paul’s long argument we have to preserve both English meanings. God’s justice and justification are really about being made righteous, and on the other hand injustice of any sort is really an attack on the righteousness of God.

I translated katechonton “holding down,” but restraining or oppressing are also fine translations.

An important exegetical note: We mustn’t here assume that Paul is talking about the doctrine of Original Sin and begin reading that subject into the text. If we do, I contend that we will misunderstand Paul’s point in chapters two and three, and break the unity of his intended argument. This is not to say that Romans 1 doesn’t share territory with the doctrine of Original Sin; of course it does. But still, the “natural” condition of sinful humanity is not Paul’s object here. His discussion is of the volitional sin of idolatry, and how that sin is the arch-sin meriting God’s wrath and necessitating God’s righteousness through the Messiah. I think we’ll further see how this idolatry with judgement parallels the Old Testament narrative of Israel, which because of its idolatrous unfaithfulness was judged by God, ultimately into exile; the story Paul tells in chapters 2-12 is the narrative of the Messiah, likewise echoing the narrative of Israel, complete with exodus, deliverance, law-giving, and covenant. But I give too much away too soon; it suffices here to say that we mustn’t assume that Paul’s first topic is Original Sin and then his answer to it is a private religious response to that problem.

19 Because God’s knowledge is shown in them. For God showed to them

“Shown” in a very similar sense to revealed, but the word is phaneron instead of apokaluptetai, probably because apokalupsis carries with the “revelatory” meaning a theological sense of climax for Paul. I don’t know whether the best translation of the second half of this verse is “For God showed it (his knowledge) to them” or “For God showed himself to them.” There is no specifying article, so it could be either. All our earliest manuscripts would be without punctuation, so the text in its barest form would simply read that God’s knowledge is shown to them for God showed them. (There would definitely be a separation between what we have as v. 20 and v. 21, however, because of the particle gar.) The total idea of vv. 18-19 is that God’s wrath against the unjust detention of the truth can’t be avoided by pleading ignorance; then the clarification in v. 20.

20 For his unseen (things) from the cosmon’s creation by his actions have been understood clearly seen, which are both his everlasting power and deity, unto their being without defense.

The unseen things are simply ta aorata. Aorata is adjectival, and the article ta denotes something, but not particularly the word “something” or the word “those” which it alters. The sentence is less bulky in Greek. By his actions is tois poiemasin, which could also mean by his doings, by his work, or by what has been made. The verb is kathoratai, which in the original running of the sentence stands in sharper relief to aorata. (The unseen things…have been clearly seen.) Theiotes might also have the sense of divinity or “godness.” I don’t know that it’s used anywhere else in the New Testament. Without defense is anapologetous, (without apologia), which will come back several times in the epistle.

21 Because knowing (the) God not as God did they glorify or give thanks, but were stultified in their reasonings and their understandingless heart was darkened.

Here begins Paul’s explanation of the net result of their injustice/irreverence. Not only is it disobedient, but it is dehumanizing. Heart, mind, wisdom, and body—those things owed to God in Jesus’ summary of Torah-duty—are all debased by their idolatry. Keep in mind, this is not (yet) an indictment of all humanity, but of those who holding down the truth in injustice practice idolatry. I translated emataiothesan “stultified,” but the net result is “made futile.” It’s worth noting that the proper reaction to knowing God set against dehumanizing idolatry is “glorifying and giving thanks.” These are not optional spiritual disciplines, but vital functions in creational monotheism, as I think we’ll see later.

22 Alleging to be wise they became foolish

I’m interested in hearing interpretations of who these irreverent and foolish idolaters are. I’ve seen them in a category as large as “all pagan Gentiles,” and as small as “the debauched imperial cult.”

23 And they altered the glory of the incorruptible God into the likening of corruptible images of man and birds and beasts and serpents.

I can’t quite tell whether the glory is divinely incorruptible or the glory is of the quality of the incorruptible God. I’ve gone with the majority translation here, but I really need to do some research on genitives. Beasts is tetrapodon, or “four-footers.” Paul is evoking Deuteronomy 4 here, which is of course front and center in Torah.

24 Therefore God handed them over into their heart’s desires unto the uncleanliness of dishonoring their bodies among themselves

Paradoken (from paradidomi) is what Jesus always said the Jews would do to him, and then what Paul always says Jesus did to himself. It’s a theologically charged word that can also mean betrayed or delivered. Desires are epithumias, which include, but are not limited to sexual lusts. Again, Paul in criticizing them for entering unto akatharsian is making a very Jewish job of it. Akatharsis, or uncleanliness, is a violation of Torah. Paul isn’t saying this to recommend that the solution is through Torah, of course, but he is drawing deliberate parallels between the old Jewish narrative and the new Christian story. Bodies here is again, somata, not sarx, which is very important later on.

25 Which exchanged God’s truth unto a falsity and reverenced and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed unto the ages, amen.

I don’t know that that this sudden blessing is a spontaneous rabbit-trail. (I’m sure St. Paul was capable of spontaneous praise, but most of his writings seem pretty deliberate.) It’s rather the close of a section of argument premised on creational monotheism, and when the argument is closed and the next subject taken up (the dehumanizing effects of irreverence) the eulogetos, amen is summative. Unto a falsity is eis pseudei; unto a lie doesn’t quite capture the parodic sense of the word.

26 On account of this God handed them over unto passions of dishonor, for both their women exchanged natural sex unto that contrary to nature

We do not here have St. Paul choosing a group to bully at random and then castigating gays because he wants to get at all the sinners. Rather, the exchange of the natural reverence for the creator for the unnatural idolatry of the created, and the resultant corruption of will uniquely demonstrated in dehumanizing homosexuality. The last part of this verse is ten phusiken chresin eis ten para phusin. A good English language resource for the meaning of phusis (from which we get the words physical, metaphysical, physics) is the first chapter of C.S. Lewis’ Studies in Words. The Latin equivalent is natura, and natura language has been particularly useless in the homosexuality/gender arguments over the past few decades. I think it might be useful to start using phusis language to cover the same territory. For example, there’s no consensus over whether someone can be naturally gay in the same way they are naturally Caucasian, tall, or brown-eyed; but ask whether someone can be physically gay in the way that they are Caucasian, or physically tall, and they might not be quite so ready to use the same arguments by analogy. Para can also be translated “against” phusin. The bashful NIV makes chresin “intercourse,” but it’s more blunt than that.

27 And likewise the men forsaking woman’s natural sex blazed in their lust unto one another, men among men accomplishing shame and receiving the return which is necessary of their error among themselves

Or “forsaking natural sex of/with women.” The cases don’t line up very well. The word shame in this verse is distantly related to the verb in v.16, but I don’t think it’s a close enough kinship to read in any deliberate contrast. The return (antimisthian) might be repayment or wage. I don’t know enough about the history of venereal diseases to speculate on whether Paul was talking about this sort of thing (though I do know that homosexuality was deeply pervasive in late classical paganism, and Paul would not be writing about such practices in newfound shock) but I’d suggest instead that the received “return” was the subhumanizing and dulling narcosis, against which Paul has been arguing in general. I’ll here leave the door open for comments about free will and determinism without saying anything more of my own except that it seems clear to me that God permits the sinful free choices of the idolaters, permits the necessary consequences of their actions, and then justly judges them.

28 And even as they did not discern to have God in acknowledgement, God handed them over unto their corrupted mind, to do those not owed

A slippery verse. Edokimasan can mean test or account, and epignosei can mean acknowledgement, recognizement, or just plain “knowledge.” The paraphrase would be, “and just as they didn’t even think to think about God.” Handed over is again paradoken. First to the dishonorable desires, and then, having made that choice, to the corruption of the instrument by which good desires and ill arise. Those things not owed is ta me kathekonta. It’s a very rare word, and could possibly mean “not fitting,” “not proper,” or “not owed.” It is, in its bare parts, “against will.” (I think)

29 Being filled with all injustice, wickedness, greed, cowardice/vice, full of corruption, murder, strive, deceit, meanness, gossip

Not just a random vice list, but the final result of the idolatrous reverence of the created over and against the creator, with special qualification of having been given over to a corrupted mind/understanding. (noon)

30 Slandering god-hating insolent arrogant boastful schemers of evils, disobedient to parents

31 Understandingless faithless affectionless compassionless

Understandingless is the same word as earlier (asunetous), and is a play on words with the faithless, which is (asunthetous) Affectionless is astorgous; so loveless, but of that particular love storge which is family affection/duty. Aneleemonas could also be merciless.

32 Such knowing God’s judgements, that those doing such are worthy of death, not alone did they do these but approved of those doing them.

Knowing here is epignontes, as in again, recognizing or acknowledging. Out of time and Julie is hastening me out the door.

Prokofiev

When I was in graduate school my trumpet teacher told me that his favorite two composers were Bach and Prokofiev. I thought that was an odd pairing, but it makes more sense to me, at least as a trumpet player, several years later. I spent the last week playing Prokofiev 5 with the BPO, and I'm utterly taken with the piece. I already knew and loved the 4th movement (listen here), which is exciting whether attached to the previous 3 movements or not, and serves as an excellent demonstration par excellence of Prokofiev's style. The earlier movements I was unfamiliar with, except a brief passage in the 2nd movement I'd once worked on for an audition. (As it turned out, I really didn't prepare it very accurately...we played it quite differently than I'd practiced it.)

I'd listened to recordings of the earlier 3 movements before, and had even heard the Chicago Symphony play the whole work in 2005. Yet when I sat in the orchestra, the texture and pace of the work came alive. "This," I thought by Wednesday afternoon "is really incredible music!" It's the sort of music, however, that really has to be heard live. For example, the whole third movement is pure magic in a live concert hall, where there's nothing but the orchestra to look at, and every soft subtlety is hear clearly. Listening in the car or the living room you miss all of the softs and have to turn down the recording for the louds. Classical music really must be heard live! My brothers tell me that there's nothing quite like the exhilaration of a well performed live rock and roll show either, but I don't imagine that the trouble with that genre is the difficulty in appreciating the softs.

It's a very busy week for gigs in the Smith household. I'm back in Buffalo playing the 1812 Overture and other educationalish works on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday mornings, and I'm playing a quintet recital with an Eastman group on Wednesday evening at the Strong Museum. (It's a very long and very demanding program. I learned a good lesson about overprogramming about a month ago, and I may learn it again this Wednesday.) After the quintet concert I have a rehearsal with another quintet for a recital in two weeks, and then Flock of Uncles gigs on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night, and a rehearsal with a choir Saturday morning and performance on Sunday evening.

This past Saturday was a big day for us: James D Bear was baptized at Pearce Memorial Church. I still owe this blog an account of our doctrinal journey to his baptism, but not yet. There were no thoughts of controversy on Saturday, just the deeply moving experience of standing in the family of God with our own families as James by grace was entered en Christo.

O, for world enough and time

Today I had the sort of reading day that made me wish I could resign all of my jobs and do nothing all day but pore through books with a pen, notebook, and everlasting coffee pot, thinking about things and trying to figure them out. There simply isn't time enough from sun-up to sun-down to think all of the glorious thoughts one could think. Add to that a lovely wife and a giggling baby boy, and a wild outside world with winds and trees and mysterious places, and it feels something like vertigo. The world is too much with us.

This Lawrence E. Lynch (has anyone ever heard of him?) book I'm reading on Aquinas is quite good. He's so far addressing the question whether Aquinas' philosophy can be taken seriously as philosophy, given that he was foredetermined in a particular religious worldview. So far he's demonstrated quite brilliantly how Aquinas defined knowledge, being, and science. It seems authentic to Aquinas, and shows convincingly how his Enlightenment critics were at futile cross-purposes. Here are two insights worth repeating:
1) Aquinas' method depended on carefully distinguishing the various ways in which truth can exist in the human reason (Some truths being of faith, others of knowledge, others of demonstration, and sometimes the same truth by different ways to different people)
2) What anything is (it's essence, as man's individual humanity) is real only because a unique act of existing makes the individual real.
This simultaneously explains the construction habens esse and answers Sartre and Russell.
In Lynch's praise, he translates Aquinas into English with admirable clarity. Against him, though this is true of nearly every scholarly philosophical work, his own writing is dull and dense...most of the time. Sometimes it astounds me, as it did on my drive home today, that there can be boring things in the same world as Elephants and mandolins and Venus fly-traps.

Also, I've sat on my last post for a good week wondering whether I'm right to leave it up or not. I haven't taken it down yet, and I think I will leave it up with the further disclaimer that I know what a deeply personal issue it can be. I'm probably the last person who has any right to say a word about it. Still, if that word can be heard, let it sound compassionate.

Image and Shape

I'm continually surprised by women. I'm mostly surprised by one woman, but that's because she's so surprising I don't really have the power to pay attention to any more. For example, I used to think that the male-female roles came down to us from ancient times by necessity. The cave people, I reasoned, must have apportioned the tasks of hunting, building, and making war to the men because men are physically larger, stronger, and tougher; it would follow quite naturally that women would tend to home and hearth, being of a generally smaller and more fragile stature.

Then I watched my wife give birth. I am no longer under any illusions about men being tougher than women. I don't know why the men were sent off to war and the women kept the infants in the ancient tribes, but it certainly wasn't because the women were too delicate.

The modern woman is also a strong and marvelous creature, but she thinks, I am now realizing, far more about her weight than I ever suspected. Women say they are thinking about their weight, but that actually means very little. A person's weight for them is really a shorthand way of talking about their shape, and they are deeply and almost frighteningly concerned about that. I notice my shape about twice a day, once in the morning when I put my clothes on and then again in the evening when I change into pajamas. Most of the women I know think about their shape nearly constantly. It's something like the "ticker" at the bottom of the screen on ESPN or CNN, and it's attached inseparably to the habits of dress, eating, and sex.

Now, when some idea is joined so strongly to dress, food, and sex, I think it's safe to call it a religious idea, and the present concern for shape can appropriately be described as a cult. Of course women (and men) have always been concerned about their shape, just as they've always been concerned for their health and hairline and smell. There's nothing unnatural in that. The concern becomes a cult when every meal eaten is publicly prefaced with either an "I know this is bad for my waistline, but such-and-such reason for eating it" or "This is surprisingly healthy and I commend myself for eating food that helps my shape." A mild vanity becomes an identifying ritual when all my female co-workers gather for a Bible Study on Tuesday nights and a Weight Watchers meeting on Wednesday nights. When clothing is judged by how well it flatters, conceals, and accentuates without a thought of whether it warms or cools, and when measurements have nothing to do with fitting comfortably and become abstract benchmarks of how successful a shape you are, you may have joined the Cult of the Shape.

Two things must be said here: First, that this is by no means some odd feminine practice which men have nothing to do with. We are just as involved with what the words "attractive" or "beautiful" mean as they are. These words have meant different things to different ages, but they have always been determined by both sexes. Second, as far as vanities go, I'd much prefer the person who is a little too fussy about her shape to the person who is a little too fussy about how important or intelligent or perfect a parent she is. As far as prides go, this one isn't so bad to be around.

I do, however, think this ought to be addressed. For one thing, it's a perfectly healthy phenomenon for a woman to look very differently at 63 and 43 than she does at 23. God made young ladies spectacularly lovely, but trying to stay 23 forever is a strange, expensive, and ultimately futile project. My wife has received more praise on her beauty over the past few months than ever before, not because of anything she's done to improve her shape, but simply because her body returned itself to its prenatal shape almost immediately after giving birth. And of course, she is gorgeous. But she isn't being complimented on that, she's being complimented on overcoming the destructive force of childbirth, which many women are unable to do. J tells me that she is secretly relieved herself, and that this was a concern about her pregnancy.

Since the mass distribution of the camera and the screen, we have come to think of ourselves as images in a way that no other people before us have. If I were to ask a man to think of himself catching the game winning touchdown pass in the Superbowl, or a woman to picture herself receiving an award at a fancy dinner, neither would think of themselves in "first-person," as they would actually experience the event, should it happen to them. They would assume the camera, and see themselves in "third person," being videotaped in their mind's eye.

Facebook has removed the image one step further from the pre-photographic culture, by placing one's identity in a editable portfolio of carefully selected images. Having the great misfortune of working with teenagers, I've heard them refer to their Facebook pages as themselves on several occasions. They are liked, approved, and commended where their consciousness resides, which is not in flesh and blood, but in electronic images!

It isn't hard at all to see how a cult of image and shape could grow so quickly in these circumstances. What can we do? I can be very thankful, first of all, that I had a son first. Second, we can appreciate youthful beauty--let's not pretend it doesn't exist, and that very powerfully--but call it for what it is, which is of course ephemeral and of secondary importance to domestic happiness. Third, we can give our sisters and wives every opportunity to know they are loved for who they are, and not what they look like, and we can refuse to adjudicate any other woman's value by their shape or lack of it. What a sad and desperate thing it must be to be a 60-something year old woman who stakes her self-worth is a shape that she can't and shouldn't ever be again, denying herself every pleasure of food and clothing in order to twist back to it, and even--this is frightening, but I've heard it more than once--praying to God that he would intervene in the matter. If I've come across as glib throughout, I apologize. I know that this is a deeply personal issue, and it has to be dealt with for our grandmothers as well as for our daughters.

I think today especially of my sister M, who turned 16 yesterday and is blooming now into the splendor of her loveliness. For the next 10 or 15 years she'll be the envy of many women and the desire of many boys. (Boys, beware--she has five older brothers.) Then she'll begin to age and have children, and the beauty that is so easy for her now will need to be kept up, and then even fought for. I hope she knows now and then that what makes her so remarkable are her inner charms. Her patience, maturity, and tender heart are rare and precious. She is beloved by her niece and nephew, and each of her older brothers are chained to her with a powerful love, her being their only sister and the baby of the family. She is her Father and Mother's delight. I can't imagine that she would ever evaluate her identity and her personhood--the whole robust collection of wonders and virtues which she is--based on the silly and fleeting shape she sees in the mirror. Much love to her and to all women, all of you ex imagine Dei.

Image, Symbol, and Idol

One of the projects I’ve been engaged in recently is a commentary on the book of Romans with my father-in-law, brother-in-law, and wife, exploring the book verse by verse for one theological reason, but finding, of course, a wealth of topics unrelated to our original purposes. In reading Romans 1 I was struck for the first time how important the sin of idolatry is to all Paul writes about the pagan Gentiles in vv.18-32. If you’d asked me six years or even six months ago whether there was any special significance to idolatry over and against any other sin in Paul’s argument I probably wouldn’t have seen anything. If there was a charge of special importance, I probably would have thought it vv. 24-27, with idolatry being something of an undesirable norm for the pagans in the way that slight speeding and overeating are for Americans.

Yet on this re-reading it struck me how in Paul’s theology and in the structure of his argument pagan idolatry is the arch-sin, the sin which leads vv. 24-27. This is not because idolatry is bad for you but it can lead to something worse; rather, 24-27 is both the consequence and the judicial sentence of idolatry: humanity lost. Or to put it another way, the imago Dei drive into exile.

In typically Pauline fashion, his syllogistic philosophy evokes the Israel story. I long failed to understand in my reading of the Old Testament why idolatry was so gravely important. Israel might be full of murder, adultery, and oppression, but it was always idolatry that called down judgment, and somehow these other sins were all expressed in the language of idolatrous unfaithfulness. The people are idolatrous and the glory is taken from the temple; the people are idolatrous and receive ignominious defeat at the hands of their enemies; the people are idolatrous and forfeit their inheritance, ultimately led off into exile. In Romans 1, this pattern is echoed powerfully in Paul’s indictment of Pagan humanity’s failure.

Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising, since every vice can be somehow expressed as a form of idolatry—little bronze statues aren’t required. Chesterton speaks somewhere of how most religious error is preferring the symbol of something over the reality which that symbol represents. For example, a man prefers the image of the cross over the divine mercy of which the cross is a symbol, and he takes a sword to his enemies. He prefers the image of the hymnal over the praise to which the hymnal is an aid, and is no longer able to open his mouth. He prefers money itself, which is just green paper and metal discs, over the healthy things which money ought to represent, like wine and horses. The image of a woman is loved more than the love of a woman, and the image of one’s self is nurtured more carefully than the virtue, manner, and health which actually is one’s self. In advocating the realities of things over their images, I begin to sound like a Platonist!

It was Neil Postman who first pointed out to me how apart from all the other ancient peoples, the Jews alone did not depict their God, and even received specific instructions—over Thou Shalt Not Murder and many others more important—that they were not to do so. First came monotheism, and then the imagelessness of God, of which they were so respectful that they would neither write down nor speak Yahweh’s name.

The creator God would not be symbolized, imaged, or depicted in something created.

Remembering this truth helps one to realize afresh how spectacular the incarnation is, for after thousands of years of keeping—albeit with various success—this commandment, God finally acts for his people, and in doing so, he gives them the long withheld image. In other words, Jesus fulfills the second commandment, for now there is an image of Israel’s God, and he is come down form Galilee.

In light of this, I’m afraid that Protestantism might have been overhasty in reacting against the rich iconography of the Roman and Eastern churches. Yes, there is of course a danger in such ornate images, but there is also a danger in lack of images. Jesus came, and he was seen by men. There must be some way, and I’m very much open for suggestions, on how we can celebrate the way in which God’s image was uniquely revealed in him without slipping into pseudo-paganism on the one hand, or on the other hand preferring the barren ugliness of Protestant churches.

There’s much more to be said, from Plato to Wittgenstein—whose work I’ve recently started on—about the relation of real things to the symbols we use to represent them. This conversation not only includes images, but is deeply concerned with language. This probably means that it’s getting beyond me and it’s time for me to start writing about classical music again.

Baeckeoffe and Grugeres

We've been listening to an awful lot of the Ratatouille soundtrack, and were in the mood for French food. Bless you, Wegmans!

On Fathers

James D Bear lives on Washington Street in the nursery. He is growing longer every day, and his parents have just arranged to have him baptized in March. It wasn't a decision made lightly, and J and I had to find each other from opposing camps. I think it will merit its own entry when the time comes.

Tonight, Monday night, is my time alone with James Bear. J has orchestra rehearsal from 7-9:30, so I give him a bottle and put him to bed. I worry sometimes that James doesn't see enough of me. Several days a week I'm out the door before he's up and I don't return until he's been put to bed for the night. It isn't unusual for Monday night to be the last time he sees me until Thursday afternoon. It would be even worse if J had to work as well, but she can stay home with him, and he loves his Mom beautifully. I'm sure he knows who I am, but I worry when I go several days without seeing him. (Sometimes I'll try to get up in the night if I know I'll be gone all day to see him at his feeding)

I have a marvelous father. He's kept five sons from killing each other for over twenty years, and he's a devoted husband, a small business owner, and a pillar of his church. He is, moreso than any other man I've known, a bringer of peace. He is patient and humble enough to swallow whatever pride he has of his own, and to do what's best for everyone. This is how he's been the worship coordinator for years at our church, and how a household of five boys survived itself. I can't remember the last time he raised his voice or even showed a flicker of a temper. He indulges the foolish strong opinions of others when that's what is best for them, and if that isn't the right thing to do he has a way of correcting you gently. He's so wise he hardly knows it, and he loves his grandchildren now in the same abundance of affection I remember poured out on his own sons and daughter.

My father-in-law is also a maker of peace. Despite his profound theological learning and gift for eloquence, his primary role in his church is as a reconciler and voice of calm. Were I able to speak so easily and hold so much sway, I'd hardly be able to resist throwing my voice against any opposition as I pushed my own theological and organizational agenda. My father-in-law counsels the hotheaded, is patient with error, and always defers to what's best for those around him.

My fathers don't just get along with those around them. Wherever they go they create comfort, calm, and trust. Their trustworthiness is a fragrance, and neither asks for anything in return. Being their son is easy.

Tonight I sat the James Bear on my lap as I put some soup in the microwave. It was a delicious Italian soup J adopted from an Olive Garden date, and I put it in for four minutes so it might be piping hot. James is always happiest with his mother, but he was playing well with me tonight. It's a remarkable thing, how powerfully motherhood sets in. If I ever slipped on the ice and fell while holding James, I would hope that in the split second I had to react, I would overcome my instinctive reaction to brace myself, and would fall in a way that would protect James instead. If J slipped on the ice with James, there wouldn't even be a question of "reacting" to protect him. Her instincts have changed. She loves him and nurtures him as naturally as she breathes, and he knows it. It's why her arms are the safest place in the world for him.

I took the soup out of the microwave and leaned over the table, so I wouldn't drip anything on the little bear bouncing on my knee. I leaned near the bowl and had a few sips. It was piping hot, and delicious. Then I dropped my spoon into the bowl, and the scalding broth splattered directly into my open eye. It felt like I'd been stung by a bee. The soup (which really was delicious) was loaded with hot peppers and salt, and I could hardly see as I staggered up and towards the bathroom. I set James down on his blanket with one eye pinched painfully closed, and then raced upstairs as he began to cry in shock and surprise.

I took my contacts lenses out, and tried to squeeze saline solution into my eye. Eventually I gave up on that and just started splashing cold water onto my face, trying to hold my eye open with one hand and cupping water with the other, James howling downstairs all the while. I started to be able to open my right eye again after a few minutes, and, red and swollen though it was, I was able to think about my son again. He was more frightened than anything else, and it took him a good several minutes of snuggling and whispering to calm him down again.

We had a good half-hour playing with toys. (Even though his rattle gives him a start, I think he likes it.) We were having a grand time on the floor before his bath. We try to bathe him every other night, and I'd made up my mind to give him a big boy bath tonight, which we'd never tried on our own before. I read him a story (The Cat in the Hat) on his changing table, and then stripped him down and took him, the bare little bear, into the bathroom. Sometimes when we change settings all of a sudden he gets upset, and this was one of those times.

I had laid him out on his towel as I checked the temperature of his water, and all of a sudden I heard him truly, truly crying. It isn't hard to tell whether he's mad, frustrated, or scared. As he cried now, shivering and naked on his towel, he was clearly frightened. I wondered whether he was just cold, but I'd wrapped him up tight. I picked him up to snuggle him for a moment, but he was flailing in an unusual way. Then I looked into his eyes and saw nothing but sheer terror. He wasn't cold or upset; he'd suddenly realized he was in a room with someone that wasn't Mom, and he was sobbing because was terrified of me. He never looked so small. I tried to whisper to him some more and comfort him, but he kept pushing away from me and twisting back. I put him in the bath, and he kicked like he's never done before, doing anything to get away, to run away, to look for Mom.

His bath tonight was more of a rinse. He was shrieking so hard that I couldn't stand to keep him in there for more than a splash off, and I couldn't get him calmed down afterwards except for finally offering him his bottle. He had tears streaming down his face and he was still shivering with sobs as he took it, twisting away from me and breathing hard. About halfway through he calmed down, and though he was still tear-stained, I felt his little body relax. He had fallen sound asleep when I wrapped him up and laid him in his crib.

Father-love is a strange and frightening thing. I think it's entirely natural, but somehow it requires effort in a way quite unlike Mother-love. Tonight when my little son saw me in the fluorescent lights of the bathroom I frightened him in a way that I've never heard him frightened before. My fathers, by a lifetime of decisions to look to the interest and well-being of others before themselves, bring comfort and peace wherever they go. I, who am clever and vain, haven't been so helplessly inexperienced at something in quite some time, especially something so important as loving and comforting my son. Pray that I might show my Father's love to him.