Row, man!

             In Romans, Paul spends a large portion of the book discussing aspects of Jews and Jewish history. Why does Paul do this in a letter to a Roman church? There must have been a reason; the most obvious explanation is that the Romans needed to hear it. One indication that the Romans could make use of information on Jews comes from the Brown reading, which explains that most religions’ understanding of other religions was “. . . partial, inaccurate, and even prejudiced” (Brown 1). Perhaps one of Paul’s purposes here is to address any misinformation about Judaism that may have been present in Rome. Another clue comes from Paul’s repeated admonishment of Jewish superiority. Paul explains in chapter two that inward understanding and observance of God’s law is greater than observing various religious laws and customs. Based on this, perhaps Paul was also addressing Jewish-Christians that were in danger of being prideful because of their Jewish heritage. The initial question of why Paul writes at length about Judaism leads to a further examination of these passages. This more in-depth look reveals further quandaries about the precise meaning of what Paul says.

              Many parts of Paul’s writings on the Jewish/gentile matter are easy to understand and rather comforting to the gentile reader. For example, one of Paul’s main ideas is that anyone who confesses and believes will be saved because God does not show favoritism. Any gentile, Roman or not, is very happy to hear that. However, Paul also makes statements that are seemingly contradictory to the idea of God’s unbiased love and mercy. One of the biggest statements is a reference to Exodus, where Paul explains that God hardens some (like Pharaoh) and shows mercy to others. The idea that God causes some to harden their hearts against him was bothersome at the beginning of the semester, and is still bothersome when revisited now.

Although there is no obvious, new revelation on the troublesome Pharaoh incident here, it is interesting to note that Paul specifically says that the Pharaoh incident is proof of God’s justice. The remainder of chapter nine is troublesome as well. Paul says that humans are dependent on God’s mercy, and have no right to complain because God is the creator and the humans were created. Therefore, God has the right to make “. . .some. . . for noble purposes and some for common use” (Romans 9:21). This alone is not particularly troublesome; it could just be a reference to the ‘body of Christ’ metaphor. However, it is immediately followed with, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath- prepared for destruction?” (Romans 9:22). Now, since Paul wrote this as a question, perhaps this statement can be disregarded. However, Paul was also a God-inspired author and should not just be brushed aside because he says something that is hard to understand. 

              It would seem that God chooses to show mercy to some, and some he chooses to use to show his wrath. However, many other portions of the bible emphasize God’s great love for humanity, like in II Peter when it says, “Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9). This shows a different side of God’s patience that contrasts with the patience described in Romans 9. Perhaps, based on this, God is patient with the objects of his wrath so that they may eventually be saved. Furthermore, God created each with different personalities. Therefore, perhaps it is easier for some to accept Christ than others. This would not mean that God shows favoritism, but rather that God is creative and makes everybody different. So when those that are stubborn or more naturally rejecting of God decide to follow him, his glory is shown.

              To be honest, I have no idea what I’m talking about here. In conclusion, I know that God is ultimately good and loves humans. The scriptures back this time and again. So although I do not have all of the answers, and some things about the bible are hard to understand, I am alright with that. That’s not to say I will not think about these things though.

LET'S GET READY TO CONFUCIUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

One of the largest differences between Confucius and the Greek philosophers is the approach to relationships. Confucius’ ethics are deeply rooted in family and having proper relationships. According to Confucius, understanding oneself leads to having proper relationships with family, friends, and authority. The governor of the people, then, must have the proper relationships between a governor, his subjects, and other princes. This contrasts to Aristotle, who sees a good family solely as one of the contributors to happiness. He does emphasize proper relationships to others, rather morality stems from proper actions towards the fellow man. However, Aristotle may argue that living an ethical life between the two extremes produces proper relationships as a by-product. Regardless, Aristotle does not emphasize relationship and does not see proper relationships as something to be pursued. In further contrast to Confucius, Plato’s ethics are almost entirely individualistic and knowledge based.  He sees governing as the duty of the educated man rather than a relationship between ruler and people.

Confucius’ focus on having the proper relationships seems confining at times. For example, he praises the son that finishes his father’s work. He also supports paying homage to ancestors and the elderly. First, for the difficulties with finishing the work of the father. I believe in the context of the passage, he means this mostly in the sense of a prince completing the work of the previous king. Practically speaking, by continuing the father’s work is much more efficient than scrapping everything and starting over. Otherwise, there would be halfway finished public works all over the place. Confucius then goes even further, saying that the traditions of the ancestors should be kept by the younger generation. This is very from modern Western culture, which has seen a cultural transformation in the last 100 years. I am uncertain here if Confucius meant that the inheriting leader should keep the traditions of his father, or if the common man should keep traditions in order to keep proper relationships with their elders and ancestors. If this is meant for the leader of the people, it is again very practical teaching. Attempting to change beloved traditions of a people is not the best way to gain their support.

However, he may also be speaking to people in a general sense when he says that the well-bred man keeps the traditions of this father. If that is the case, then Confucius believes proper relationships with elders and ancestors means to keep the traditions of the past, even to the extent of listening to the same music. (For real: see XIX 5). Obviously, this is very different than the predominant culture of modern America, where music only two years old is obsolete and considered a throwback. Western culture values individualism and freedom, chafing at the attempts of tradition to constrain things.

However, since everything we are is built on the past, perhaps Confucius’ points should not be immediately dismissed. For example, in the study of mathematics, it is highly improbable (pun intended) that a person would be able to invent the real number system, arithmetic, algebra, probability, geometry, and calculus in a single lifetime. (There is probably a limit to our singular knowledge even if given infinite time.) Math began with the counting numbers, and each generation of mathematicians has built on the foundation of their predecessors. Similarly, what we are is a direct result of our past, our family’s past, and the whole of the human history. How can people build if they do not know what they are building on? How can people employ sine and cosine functions if they do not know what angles are?

This is why understanding the past is so important. We pay homage to our ancestors by understanding them. Although I may not go to the extent recommended by Confucius, having a proper relationship with the past is vital to building a future. Perhaps Confucius believes that keeping the traditions of our ancestors is how the past is best understood and respected. As aforesaid, this is in contrast to American individualism. In my opinion, neither should be completely disregarded; there should instead be a relationship between tradition and innovation. Aristotle would probably be pleased if we avoided the extremes of tradition vs. change, and Confucius would probably like having a proper relationship between the two. Plato, however, would just be annoyed that we are not discussing mathematics.

Analyzing Aristotle: An Examination of his Ethics

In Books I and II of his work, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as the ultimate end to good. His next step is to define happiness. Interestingly, he does not consider happiness a mere emotion. Rather, Aristotle believes it comes after a lifetime of living virtuously and being lucky. He does admit, however, that happiness means different things to different people. Though according to his main definition, children cannot be happy. This is a strange thing to say, considering the modern belief that children are happier than adults. Although the modern definition of happiness varies with Aristotle’s, modern thought is not entirely wrong here. Happiness is not limited to people that have lived long, virtuous, and fortunate lives. In older people, happiness can stem from these qualities. In children, happiness is more dependent on mood and parental love. That does not mean children cannot be happy; children are very capable of virtue. How many times have children been heard to say, “That’s not fair!”? Furthermore, Aristotle stresses the importance of understanding the underlying spirit of virtue. Therefore, although many children may not understand an in-depth analysis of right and wrong, it does not follow that they are incapable of perceiving the spirit of right and wrong, and therefore the spirit of virtue.

Aristotle’s talk of happiness raises a question for Christians: is happiness possible without God? Well, it is possible to be fairly virtuous and to have a clear conscience, which Aristotle says is the main precursor. Then, after that, if a person is fortunate they will have friends and family that they care about. After all of this, maybe the person will be happy. However, even when everything is right in a person’s world, and the world of their closest friends, there is still a void that only God can fill. One of the reasons for this is because if a person is virtuous, which Aristotle says results in happiness, that person would realize the disparity in the world and would be bothered by it. Aristotle lists justice as a virtue, so a just person would be pained by injustice in the world. How, then, is the pain felt as a result of virtue transformed into happiness? Is the righteous person supposed to care just enough to be virtuous, but not so much that their happiness is unaffected? Aristotle suggests that happiness is not an emotion. Logic, though, insists that the emotions must be at peace in order for happiness to occur. Perhaps Aristotle believes that by being virtuous people will be ‘doing their part’ for the poor, friendless, less fortunate, etc. After doing this, perhaps their compassion is reconciled.

Furthermore, the weight of the entire world is not our burden to bear. Without God, virtue demands that the virtuous person behave like God, because there are serious problems in the world that need to be fixed. This is an impossible task that will only lead to discouragement. For this reason, God is necessary for happiness. However, for the Christian happiness is probably not the main goal in life. Though in selfishness, it may be pursued occasionally. Happiness tends to be the side effect of pursuing God wholeheartedly. Which Aristotle would describe as virtue, but let us now return to my original point. God does not intend for humans to worry about the entire world’s welfare. That may sound harsh, but hear me out. He calls us to compassion and caring for the downtrodden, as stated in Exodus and elsewhere throughout the Bible. This probably does not mean we moan and groan about how awful the world is and live in despair. God calls us to live joyfully, and Jesus says to let tomorrow’s problems stay in tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). Recall that the entirety of the world is God’s responsibility, because only he is big enough to understand the thing in its entirety. This does not imply that Christians should disregard other people’s problems, but to be compassionate, help where we are able, but not to worry excessively and fall into despair.

With all of this talk of happiness, virtue, and compassion, there is a trap. God calls people to action, and they ought to act. Wholeheartedly, if possible. Aristotle is very blunt about people that are all talk: they are very foolish. Talking about goodness and happiness does not therefore make a person good or happy. George MacDonald wrote something similar in an unspoken sermon on justice. He says, “Oh the folly of any mind that would explain God before obeying Him! That would map out the character of God instead of crying, Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?” (Lewis 104). Most of the time, people know what right and wrong actions are. This may be why Aristotle spends little time explicitly defining the virtues, and why MacDonald disapproves of theorizing instead of doing. It is important to actually live virtuously, and have compassion in deed and not simply in word.

MacDonald quote pulled from George MacDonald, a collection of his quotations compiled by C.S. Lewis.

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian.