Year A. Second Sunday in Advent
December 9th, 2001
Title: “Equating “old,” with “holy,” and “new” with “unholy.” Romans 15: 4-13
SECOND READING:
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles, and sing praises to your name”; and again he says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people”; and again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him”; and again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles shall hope. “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
(Here ends the 2nd, reading.)
This letter, written to a church Paul did not found, divides nicely in two sections, a doctrinal one, chapters one to eleven and an ethical one, chapters twelve to fifteen. This is true of all of Paul’s authentic letters. The doctrinal section is expository in nature and style; the ethical section is exhortatory. First Paul lays out what a Christian is by virtue of Christ in the doctrinal section. Then, he lays out what a Christian should do in order to be true to what he or she has been made by Christ. The Pauline formula is: Become what you are. Become, in this world, what you already are in God’s world. Paul is clear that the Mosaic legal prescriptions are no longer the norm for Christian conduct. Yet, there are moral demands on the Christian if he or she is to authentically reflect the new creation he or she has become. But they are now principles, not prescriptions, at work in the Christian, and the basic one, the overriding one; the all-encompassing one is love or charity.
Since all are united to Christ, ontologically, in God’s world, God’s eyes, God’s estimation, all are to be united in Christ, functionally, in this visible world. The unity of the Christian community requires individual Christians to pursue certain common goals. They all lead to and flow from unity. In so far as this unity is a divine reality already, it can only be expressed in behavior. In so far as this unity is a divinely expressed goal for humans, it must be arrived at by the common pursuit of what is good. Therefore Christians are to worship and live in the one Spirit, attitude, of God as it was revealed in the attitude and behavior of Christ. Paul takes the most general principle, love, and applies it to specific circumstances, showing what love-in-action would look like and exhorting his readers to actually live out that principle in a concrete way. Yet, Paul does not get so concrete, so specific, that his exhortations cross the line into exact prescriptions. He is not prescribing good works, sneaking them in the back door, as it were, after formally expelling them out the front door. He is saying that if Christians are to become what they are, that is, saved, they are now to do good works, not in order to be saved, but, because they already have been saved. Good works are now the result of salvation, not the cause. The Christian behaves out of gratitude for salvation received, received by the grace of God, not achieved by the works of humans.
There were some Christians, specifically Jewish Christians, who had a hard time with all the freedom Paul’s teaching would imply. They were used to exact prescriptions: worship this way on this day, eat this and not that, wash this just this way and when, etc. These specific ways of expressing faith in God were no longer seen as necessary or even salutary ways. Paul called such Christians “weak,” hardly a flattering term. The “strong,” like Paul himself, could handle Christian freedom, unlike the “weak,” who still harbored legalistic scruples. Paul’s position towards them is essentially the same as he advocated in 1Cor, namely, “Love over knowledge.” Even though a stronger Christian knows a particular traditional practice of piety to be irrelevant to Christian salvation, the one of “stronger” faith is to avoid giving scandal to the “weaker,” out of love. One should not flaunt freedom at the expense of another’s conscience, even though the other is wrong. Love demands a different approach. The Christian is to adopt the attitude of Christ, the Suffering Servant, who bore even the reproaches of his enemies with long-suffering, fortitude and forbearance. If this was Jesus’ attitude toward people who were a lot more wrong than the “weak,” Christians, then it should be the attitude and approach of the “strong,” Christians. If they are truly free in Christ, then they are free to be patient and kind, not merely correct.
In verse four, written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness, this and the next two verses are really a parenthesis to Paul’s main line of thought in this section. Paul is speaking about Scripture, which at this stage was the Old Testament. If the prescriptions of the Old Testament law no longer apply to the Christian that does not mean that their instructive and exhortatory powers no longer apply. Scripture gives us plenty of examples of people who endured trying, almost impossible, circumstances and came out of it better than anyone would have predicted or expected because of their faith and faithfulness.
By the encouragement of scripture we might have hope: If God is faithful and faithfully pulled others through, others who had faith in him, in the past, we can be confident he will pull us through if we fit the same pattern as they. Scripture actually foretells the outcome for those in difficult circumstances who face them with faith.
In verse five, to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus: This is the same idea, almost the same wording, as that in Phil 2:5, “Let that mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus.” The word phronein, “to have an attitude, mind, mindset,” is a central concept in Paul. It is the matching up of the individual Christian’s and corporate Christian’s whole outlook with that of Christ. Here, Paul prays that the many examples of Scripture, culminating in the example and attitude of Christ, will open the Christian to God’s grace and more, to his mentality. With that “match up,” Christians will treat others, right and or wrong, the same way God does, that is, with love and patience
In verse six, with one voice glorify: “Glorify” means to make the invisible presence of God visible, felt, obvious. It is clear that “one voice” does not mean “uniformly.” God’s treatment of everyone “as the same,” does not spell identical behavior but equal love. When that love is manifestly there, so is God.
In verse seven, welcome one another just as Christ has welcomed you: Paul returns to his main theme. The “strong” and the “weak” give witness to the presence of God among them and glorify him, make him visible, when they are accepting of one another despite differences. No doubt, this would be most evident at common meals where one group would be abstaining from the very food, example pork, the other group would be eating, both on “religious,” grounds. Christ, again, is the leader and model. He accepts people as they are, Jew or Gentile, but loves them so much that he does not leave them as they are, but saves them, makes them whole. The same is true of Christians. They get nowhere being condescending, judgmental or standoffish when it comes to fellow Christians with whom they disagree on details that matter little regarding salvation. Paul’s attitude:- is that Christ accepted the “unacceptable,” namely “you,” and “you” should do the same.
In verses eight and nine, Christ became a minister of the circumcised: The “weak,” would undoubtedly argue that all Christians should follow Christ’s example and be circumcised, a symbolic promise to follow the law. Paul says no. Christ became circumcised, one of them, in order to be more like them in all things so that they would see God in him. In coming first to the Jews Christ underwent, became a “servant of,” circumcision to remove any obstacles to being listened to. Of course, that did not happen. It did not work. But, Jesus did remove that excuse.
But so that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy: Circumcision was not a necessary means to salvation, to covenant with God, even though many Jews and Jewish Christians erroneously thought so. If it were, Gentiles would have to be circumcised. Paul says that the fact that they do not, in a little bit of circular reasoning, shows that God saves by his mercy, not by human practices, no matter how pious or painful. Of course, the whole discussion on physical circumcision seems to leave out women. Not really, however, for a woman was part of the family, the corporate personality, and as such shared in everything the family was. God was true to his word to the Jews. His unmotivated love to the Gentiles does not contradict anything God said, promised, did or will do in behalf of the Jews.
Therefore, I will praise you among the Gentiles: verses nine to thirteen, give a chain of Old Testament. verses. This one is from Psalm 18: 49. In verse four, Paul said all of Scripture is for instruction and edification “upbuilding”. Thus, he clinches his argument by a string of quotes meant to instruct, especially, the “weak,” in what he is saying about Gentiles not being bound by Jewish law and Old Testament proof that God intends that Gentiles be saved as well as Jews. What God spoke of old is alive and true today. They should see in the Gentiles coming into the Church the ancient will of God, expressed in their own Scriptures.
Sermon
The practice of circumcision, that is, the removal of the foreskin of the male penis, caused problems for the early church. It was a long-standing Jewish practice, a sign of the covenant, at least, for men. Paul’s position that Gentiles need not be circumcised in order to become Christians, though eventually adopted as the Church’s official position, was not well received by many Jewish Christians. Of course, circumcision was only one of the issues that threatened to divide the early church into two camps, something akin to what we have in the Catholic Church today in the wake of Vatican Council II, namely conservative vs. liberal; not only the Roman Church but many other denominations are faced with division tearing at the fabric of each denomination because of conservative vs. liberal . Sometimes, in his letters, Paul would tackle this division head on; other times he was subtler. However, it was a problem, which even after it was officially resolved, continued to cause problems and, directly or subtly, Paul addressed it often. He did so because he realized that it was not just an argument over this or that practice, but that the issue struck at the very core of Christianity. He knew that adopting the more conservative position would turn Christianity into just another religion among the religions of the world, a religion that would bow to human practices and beliefs at the expense of God’s express revelation. It is simply a fact that many religious folks prefer the old to the new, that they are inclined not only to be “conservative,” but to impose that approach to religion on others in the name of all that is holy. They are inclined to equate “old,” with “holy,” and “new” with “unholy.” Paul’s opponents were convinced he was “unholy.” He, however, framed the issue differently and spoke of being “strong” or “weak.”
A calm reflection on the human, some would say “inhuman,” practice of male circumcision makes it clear that as a medical or surgical procedure it is rather neutral. People assign meaning to the practice, one way or another, but the practice itself means nothing of consequence. We now know that it does not prevent cancer, that it is not necessarily more hygienic than uncircumcision, that in some cases, example phimosis, it is medically required, but in most not. We also know that other cultures contemporaneous with ancient Jewish culture practiced circumcision also. Thus, as a sign of the covenant it was not the essential one, let alone the singularly distinguishing one. Moreover, women were not circumcised and they were members of the covenant also. Of course, Jews, and others of different cultures, did not get circumcised for medical or hygienic reasons, but for religious ones. It was as a religious practice that circumcision came under scrutiny. Many, most, Gentiles were not circumcised, were adults, and the idea of being circumcised as an adult with all its pain and, unnecessary risk of infection or complications, could or would cause large numbers of Gentile men to not become Christian, if that were a requirement. Gentiles were not emotionally attached to the practice, as were Jews, most of whom were circumcised when they were eight days old and oblivious at the time to what was happening. In other words, it would cost the Gentile a whole lot more than it did the Jew. Paul knew that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, only faith was. The fight in the early church was not merely, not really, about circumcision, but about one’s basic attitude toward God’s revelation.
Paul knew his Scripture well enough to know the secondary importance of circumcision. Many others did not. They got their religious knowledge from others, “experts,” and scholars in the Law. They “experts,” were not always telling the whole story. Just as today we have our religious bigots who misquote Scripture to bolster their own opinion, so they had them then. That is why Paul insists that Scripture was written for instruction and encouragement, not for destruction and condemnation. Scripture is not to be used as ammunition against an intellectual opponent. It is food, nourishment, encouragement, instruction. It is the medium wherein and whereby we listen to God and talk to him, converse with him, that we might be filled with his presence and power and empowered to do what he wants done. It is not meant to be a cause of division, though following its message may result in division. Paul knew his Scripture well enough that he interpreted each verse in the light of the rest of Scripture. He did not pull out a verse, out of context, in order to best his opponent. When we twist Scriptural passages in order to fit them into our preconceived notions we do God a great disservice, for we misquote him, either intentionally or unintentionally. If we have some influence over others, we also do them a disservice by leading them astray. Thus, Paul admonishes his listeners, and each of us, to adopt Christ’s attitude toward Scripture and toward those who disagree with us. See Luke 9: 50, the last thing he said before embarking on his final journey to Jerusalem.
Scripture is written for our encouragement and nourishment.
Quoting Scripture to the devil’s face in time of temptation is the only time Scripture can be authentically used as a weapon.
Using Scripture as a weapon to fight other Christians of different points of view is abusing Scripture.
We will only think in harmony with one another when our attitude is that of Jesus Christ.
Having the mind and mindset of Jesus Christ produces unity, not uniformity.
Strong vs. Weak: When a Christian declares himself or herself to be “conservative,” he or she generally means that he or she is faithful to the faith, that is, the deposit of faith, the “traditional,” practices of the church over the centuries, and the strict moral code that allows for little flexibility. If the Christian is also Lutheran, being conservative would also include loyalty to the Augsburg confession and Book of Concord, even and especially above the local bishop, opposition to abortion and to any variation in the liturgy. Thus, there are litmus tests for being accepted as a conservative by other conservatives. Paul will be quoted, when it comes to what he says or is imagined to have said, on such topics, as women in the church and homosexuality, but he will be studiously avoided on such topics as freedom from the Law. Conservatives simply do not like what Paul has to say on those, freedom, topics and so they do not bring them up and presume that their listeners or followers do not know their Scripture well enough to realize it. After all, if they were reading Scripture, they would not be listening to them in the first place. It is true that as a general rule “conservatives” do not quote Scripture, not because they are afraid of misquoting it, but because they put their trust in what other human beings have said about it. Paul, of course, did not call such folks “conservatives;” he called them “weak.” They did not have a personal relationship with God or the Lord Jesus. Rather they still had a relationship with Law. Therefore, nothing can be revised, since the Law of God is from God. It is interesting to note a parallel in Islam. Muslims believe that every word of the Koran was actually dictated by God to Mohammed. Therefore it cannot be changed. Oddly enough, when that position is taken, there arises a great variety of opinions as to its interpretation. This variety leads to divisions, which have led to hatred of one another and to “holy wars.” Christians who are inflexible about religious matters end up at odds with, indeed sometimes at war with, their Christian opponents. Paul knew that the fundamental problem was not circumcision or “conservative” vs. “liberal,” but that some people were “weak,” and the weak folks depended on Law and laws too much. They have yet to have a truly personal relationship with the God of the Law and have substituted the law(s) of God for it. They are so “weak” that they need props, more props than the ‘strong” in order to feel secure. Once we are in union and communion with the Lord on a sustained basis, once we converse with him in a friendly and informal way about everything, once we truly realize that he is in charge of the world, we can relax about the details, the issues, the policies and procedures of the church. We do not need to fix the church. It is divinely founded and fueled. None of our foibles, faults or failures, individual and communal, can destroy the church. With that power within and among us we can afford to be magnanimous in relating to others who do not wear our “uniform,” and we can stop fighting with them to put on ours.
Attitude: Paul prays that “the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Jesus Christ.” That is another version of what he says in Phil2: 5: “Let that mind, attitude, be in you that is in Jesus Christ.” And both of those are variants of what Christ himself, and also John the Baptist, said as his first recorded words in both Mark and Matthew: “Repent and believe in the good news.” The message is one, but the form in which it comes to us is varied. That is the difference between unity and uniformity. It involves seeing beneath the surface. The same is true of people. Amen.
