An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 214: Deeds or Faith? And just what is the deal with God and foreskins? (Romans 1-5)

Romans 1-5
Deeds or Faith? And just what is the deal with God and foreskins?

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Romans 1

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

During my commentary on Acts I’ve alluded to my dislike of Paul, and this chapter, first of the Epistles, demonstrates nicely why. After some preamble of formal greetings and how Paul would really love to come and teach in Rome some day, he gets right into laying out a lot of (self-) righteous anger at the eeevil sinners – “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:  Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Ranty man is ranty.

There’s some veiled stuff about homosexuality, and possibly even lesbianism gets a mention here –“for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature”. That’s egregious enough, but I do wonder at the several-times mentioned phrase about the “natural use” of women. So women have a “use” do they Paul? Which, it would appear, is popping out kids.

I think, personal feeling aside, what galls me about all this self-righteous fury, is that you don’t see Jesus behaving like this in the gospels. I seem to recall Him being asked by the apostles why He spends so much time with tavern people and other low-lifes, to which Jesus replies that these are the people most in need of salvation. Which is fair enough, but there’s no judgment or condemnation, only compassion. Jesus doesn’t get angry at the woman “affected by bleeding” who touches his robes in a crowd and gets healed, He upbraids the hypocrisy of the crowd eager to stone the “woman caught in adultery”. You aren’t going to convert and “save” people by shouting at them about how horrible they are. And then this Johnny-Come-Lately Saul pops up and decides that he, of all people, knows best what Jesus’ message really is, and sows the seeds for millenia of obnoxious religiosty. Rant of my own, there.

Romans 2

“Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

Okay … so all of that at the end of the last chapter … that was an example of what not to do? Because here now we get a lecture against hypocrisy, against teaching against various sins whilst carrying them out themselves. A lot of the language in this chapter is very obtuse and it’s hard to make out what Paul is talking about, particularly the stuff about “uncircumcision” – “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision”. What?

What’s interesting here, though, is that Paul deems that God’s reward is according to actions, not specifically to conversion. “[God] will render to every man according to his deeds”, and “glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good”. I’ve seen interpretations that Christianity is not to do with deeds, but specifically only conversion and acceptance of Christ – which wipes out past sins. Maybe that’s what all the blether about circumcision and uncircumcision is all about.

Romans 3

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

You’d think that if God decided to inspire someone to write His words down, He’d chose someone who can write with more clarity. I can’t fathom out what this chapter is trying to say, I may have to revert to a New English version for translation. I think, at first, Paul is saying that God is God, and always justified, no matter what people do. And people are all sinners, therefore they need saving.

It seems that Paul is contrasting “law”, by which I assume religious law, against faith, but ends up saying that faith in Jesus/God in the end supports the law, even though merely following the law does not automatically grant faith. Like I say, I think that’s the meaning, it’s very obtuse. What, for example, are we meant to make of “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”. The law gives knowledge of sin? It tells you what’s “right” and wrong”, perhaps? I’d argue that it gives knowledge of what the lawmakers decide is right and wrong. If Paul is talking about Mosaic law here, then by tradition the lawgiver in this case is God, so I suppose arguing from the point of a theist these by definition give knowledge of absolute right and wrong. Although Paul is also arguing that some points of the old law, e.g. circumcision, are not needed, so evidently human agency is allowed to overturn the old law, so it can’t be absolute. Except that “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”. Eh. You’re talking in circles, man.

Romans 4

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

Paul seems to return here to his theme of belief vs. deeds, and which is the more “righteous”, with specific focus once again on the concept of circumcision. Quite why a God would create foreskins and then demand that they be sliced off as a symbol of faith, I can’t quite fathom, but I guess it’s better than followers of the goddess Cybele who would castrate themselves in religious fervour. Mind you, that makes more sense in that it’s a permanent and dramatic sacrifice.

Paul brings up Abraham as an example, a man that was chosen by God to be the father of nations due to some inherent righteousness, but since Abraham was trotting around prior to the circumcision injunction, he was presumably uncircumcised. And yet was still righteous enough to be God’s pick, ergo (according to Paul), slicing your foreskin off is not enough by itself to make God like you or to make you a good person.  Which looks like Paul is heading towards concluding that deeds and not faith make you good, except that he goes in the opposite direction; “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God”. (Edited in by later me: As I recall, God does insist that Abraham, and all of his servants, slaves, etc. get circumcised).

Romans 5

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”

Paul’s theme here is how Jesus died to redeem sin. He recounts in various ways and comparisons, that sin, and death, entered the word through Adam, and how Jesus’ death allowed the way to remove sin and death. Some theological and logical quibbles here – Adam disobeyed, and everyone from him to Jesus was cursed with death and an inherently sinful nature, no choice, no option not to be, apparently. I think the Jews would disagree since to them, following Moses’ commandments was the way to be righteous in the sight of God. But according to Paul and the Christians, no, this is wrong. Only through accepting Jesus can you be saved. Which is my other quibble – no choice in being cursed, but you have to make a conscious effort to be saved. Jesus’ death, despite being spun as some kind of global sin-offering, doesn’t remove (non-spiritual) death, neither does it automatically expiate all sins.

Now, I can understand the psychology of this – change only comes if a person actively decides that they want to change. So much as it seems a bit unfair not to automatically have sins lifted (that come from a source that was not your fault), it is a bit easy. I quite liked Paul’s Yoda-esque pathway, where tribulations lead to patience, and patience leads to experience, and experience leads to hope. I don’t think it works quite so self-evidently as fear -> anger -> hate -> suffering, but it’s a nice sentiment.

Oh, and my other thought: "Sin entered into the world". From where? Presumably God had Sin waiting in a cupboard somewhere to unleash, just in case man disobeyed, which He would have known was going to happen anyway. So... set up?