Romans 1:19-20, the absence of esoteric knowledge

“…since the manifest knowledge [gnosis…phaneron] of God is among [in] them, for God to [in] them made it appear. For the Unseen of him, from the founding of the Kosmos through the made things [poiemasin] perceived [nooumena] , is clearly seen, his deathless capacity and divinity, so that they are wordless in defense [anapologetous]."

Romans 1:19-20

In this literal or at least very close translation from Romans, Paul seems to dispel any sense of esoteric knowledge. The knowledge is manifest, that is appearing, such that even the unseen aspect of God is made clear in the very perception of objects in the world, unaided by doctrine. Interesting also is the use of the dative in the manifestation of knowledge, for it can mean that the gnosis of God is in our midst, or inside (or even through) us. What it does is set up a doctrine of immanence, wherein the knowledge of God is expressed in each and every thing, including our manifestation. God’s capacity and divinity is plain to be seen, and by virtue of its apparentness we all are in the same boat in terms of judgment (Romans 2:1).

Philosophically, what is interesting is that what we have here a host of dynamic words associated with awareness and knowing.

Gnosis – knowledge
Phanes – appearance
Aorata – unseen, invisible
Poiesis – making, fashioning
Dunamis – capacity; power
Nooumena – mind, perceiving
Kosmos – organized order, the world
Anapologetous – undefended by speech

What Paul seems to set out is a phenomenology of truth, wherein the knowledge of God is made plain in the perception of made things, a process of manifestation and awareness (indistinguishable), in which what appears is Capacity and Divinity, an immediacy of presentment of the very foundations of the Universe, as experienced by the mind as the eye, a clarity that impugns the unjust and irreverent, condemning them on a phenomenological level, so as to make them speechless in defense. It is an immanence of knowing.

Dunamis

Hi Dunamis

Remember who Paul is speaking to . He is speaking to people who have achieved a level of understanding. Some have begun to lose the thread.

He is looking for growth in understanding from some followers as he previously expressed.

So made plain to who? Is he speaking of mankind? Regular life reflects the karmic conditions you mentioned on another thread. They do not have eyes to see or ears to hear so what could be made plain? From Matthew 13:

Nothing made plain here.

Paul is referring to those who have seen and heard in a new way with new eyes and ears so to speak. It is conscious knowledge Some of them have begun to lose it and are on the verge of becoming “experts” not only to their own disadvantage but at the expense of others absorbing their expertise.

I agree that there is no esoteric knowledge but only knowledge that inspires esoteric thought. The following is from Father sylvan. It is the best explanation I’ve read as to the relationship between esoteric knowledge and thought. The people Paul is speaking to I believe had experienced this:

"

The unseen aspect of God could be made clear but first we need eyes and ears.

N.,

So made plain to who? Is he speaking of mankind?

I believe he is speaking of a direct phenomenological understanding of God, that transcends doctrinal information. From his description of what follows –the depravity and incredible excess of the wicked- clearly he is referring to more than a few back sliding Christians, but rather to mankind, or at least Romans as a whole. And the rejected understanding is specifically come through the perception of the the made world, through which the Capacity and Divinity of God is revealed. To all. There is no excuse. No words to come to your aid. The trans-doctrinal theme is taken up latter in chapter 2.

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements [literally the “work of the law” ergon tou nomou] are written in their hearts.”

Romans 2:15

Nothing made plain here.

You assume a continuity between Paul and Christ. I do not. I specifically am addressing Paul’s theological ideas, which are not necessarily those of Jesus.

Paul is referring to those who have seen and heard in a new way with new eyes and ears so to speak.

In no way is this clear in the text, indeed the text leans the other way. First he prefaces that he is obligated to Greeks and Barbarians, the wise and the fools, seemingly those who have not recieved the gospel, for it is they to whom he is “eager to preach the gospel”. In fact God’s wrath, which specifically lays the ground for the text, detailing those without defense, is against “all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. The truth referred to is specifically the truth made plain by the manifestation of the objects of the world. You are inserting a qualification that does not appear. Furthermore the descriptions of the wicked, as I mentioned above, seem descriptions of society in general (murderers, etc.), not initiates who have rejected divine instruction. The eyes and ears are those of every human being.

The people Paul is speaking to I believe had experienced this:

Sometimes it seems your penchant to resolve every religious text into a single view, for instance in this case to insert experiences had by one believer, in the experiences of an audience of Paul’s, and to restrict the meaning of his words in reference to things yet written. Thoughts like “Paul must be referring to this kind of experience which is described by Father Sylvan”, just don’t make much sense for me. I’d much rather interpret his words based on his words and to what they refer. But of course we all have our way.

Dunamis

I would go so far as to say that the immanence of knowing that Paul refers to here is a faculty of it’s own- we percieve God basically and immediately, not through the use of reason, or direct perception (though perception plays it’s part).
Nevertheless, reason and knowledge of God must coincide. For the believer, this coherence is sought for the sake of reason, not for the sake of belief in God.

Ucc.,

“Nevertheless, reason and knowledge of God must coincide.”

So you would disagree with William of Ockham, that there are two domains, that of faith, and that of reason. And disagree with the general unreasoned and ecstatic knowing of God that that characterize mysticism in general? Does not reason depend in language, and is not language insufficent to describe God?

Dunamis

  Again, reason and belief in God must coincide [i]for the sake of reason[/i].  If reason were utterly incompatible with the belief in God that springs up within us, then we would be obliged to distrust it (reason). I think that leaves room for mystical understanding of God, though as it happens, I am skeptical of 'mystics'.  
  I agree that basic, primary knowing of God comes from a source outside of reason.  However, I think that [i]on that level[/i] our knowledge of God is primal, unworked. In order to make any sense of it, and to integrate it with other things in our lives (such as ethics, science, and what have you) reason becomes important.  A mystic would say that God is ineffable.  I see that as the result of only taking the first step- because the first step is sure, and those that follow could lead to a fall.  Relying on what we can know about God without reason would be like playing a game of chess only until one's open was established, then stopping rather than risk making a mistake.

Ucc,

" In order to make any sense of it, and to integrate it with other things in our lives (such as ethics, science, and what have you) reason becomes important."

So the question becomes, isn’t the proper attitude not to integrate the ecstatic knowing of God “with other things in our lives”, in otherwords not to cut and box it into concepts and principles, but rather to integrate our lives into it? It seems to me that many people attempt to make the religious experience one more factor of their many conceptions. When in truth the radical unintegratable nature of the divine should transform our lives, shaking them from their conceptual, domesticated base. Don’t you think that is more in order, if one is going to take these kinds of things seriously? One shouldn’t really make God more like the rest of our lives, via reason, but rather make the rest of our lives more like God, something for which I imagine that what is commonly called “reason” would not play such a central role.

Dunamis

Dunamis

Quite true. The essence of Christianity is re-birth. Ideas must reflect this direction. If I neglected it, I would be following the modern trend into Christendom which is not all that attractive to me.

How can he possibly be referring to mankind? Look how he describes who he is talking to. From Romans 6

These are people with experience. The"old man" is gone in favor of re-birth. It is also a critical time since we are vulnerable in the beginning. Doesn’t appear like your average Roman to me.

Only such people could suppress the truth since it is only through their experience that they’ve come to know it. How could anyone suppress what they didn’t at one time understand?

The goal of Christianity is re-birth. It isn’t a doctrine though we do need help. The doctrine probably best serves the purpose as described by Simone Weil:

Romans 2: 13-15

If the heart understands a person is said to be asleep in the body and following the way of tradition which leads to salvation. Its not a matter of a doctrine of who said what, it is a matter of the quality of emotional understanding and what it reflects: the law.

N.,

How can he possibly be referring to mankind? Look how he describes who he is talking to. From Romans 6

You are quoting material 4 chapters after the fact, where it is precisely believers that are addressed. Specifically to the text in question though, is the prelude,

“I am obligated to Greeks and Barbarians, both the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God…”.

Here, in particular he seems to be referring to the uninitiated -it is inconceivable to be ashamed before the coverted-, and this is prelude to his description of the manifestation and knowing of God through the made things of the world.

Its not a matter of a doctrine of who said what, it is a matter of the quality of emotional understanding and what it reflects: the law.

Paul specifically, in the context of this portion of the text refers to:

“For whatever peoples [ethne] who do not have the law, by nature [phuse], that of the law make [poiosin, the same verb as the made things that reveal the power of God], these a law not having for themselves, are a law” 2:14

This strictly is a natural law, written on the hearts of peoples without formal law, a people that make/do the law in the same manner as God reveals his power in, through and among people. The “emotional” understanding seems to be described as a fundamental experience of God’s power through the perception of the dynamism and divinity of the world as it presents itself.

It is interesting that those that fall from this truth are said to be defenseless, but more specifically left without a verbal defense, without words. Which suggests that it is the wordless truth in the first place which confronts them. In some consonance with this, Paul specifically addresses those that claim to be wise [in Paul often a euphemism for the philosopher],

“Although they claim to be wise [sophoi], the became fools and exchanged the incorruptible glory of God into a likened image of corruptible man and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles”. 1:22

Making it seem that the very mimetic process of language, and the reflexity of its contemplation and judgment, brings the result of their wickedness. They “exchanged the truth [aletheian, the revealed] for a lie [psuedei]”, taking the made thing to be not the expression of Capacity and Divinity, but rather as very truth itself. This would perhaps simply understood as some kind of loose condemnation of idolatry, if not for the preceding passage the spoke in very specific terms of the plain truth as reveal in the perception of made things, and the subsequent mentioning of a law that is naturally “written” in the heart, and made through actions. It is almost as if words and things express, but do not properly refer.

Dunamis

Dunamis

Romans 1

I read this as addressing people with some understanding. In such a group as Paul is addressing, it consists of people at different levels of understanding interrelating. It is how the teaching is able to live and grow.

The reason Paul is stressing his lack of shame is because some people have done just that and become “experts.” So

In many traditions this person is referred to as the good householder. He has a healthy kernel of life within. He is astute enough to handle the pressures of life and identify experts for what they are and putting them into perspective.

Yes, they became “experts.”

Nick,

“In such a group as Paul is addressing, it consists of people at different levels of understanding interrelating. It is how the teaching is able to live and grow.”

I think key here is your point people at different levels of understanding. Included in these levels are those in Rome that have not been addressed at all. When Paul moves from the wise to murderers, all of whom have exchanged the truth for a lie, he is speaking far beyond the circumstances of the Roman fellowship. I think at bottom here is that Paul does not see a division between believers (a church) and non-believers (everyone else). The gospel is meant for all, so even though he is addressing believers -a very small number- in the address, in fact he is addressing all of Rome, and in fact the world. Wherein his text leans out into a phenomenology of truth, laws written naturally on the heart, he is sweeping out beyond the immediacy of the converted, surveying the spiritual land of man. I think it too restrictive to imagine that all of his words are conditioned only by the original specificity of his address, when in fact it goes far beyond that, both in philosophy and in topic. He does not say God’s wrath is upon the depraved because they have heard the goodnews of Christ and have rejected it. He says it is upon the depraved because they experienced the unseen of God in the very things of the world, but have literalized it. The depravity that he describes is far too extensive, far too vivid to be explained upon a few becoming “experts”. Rather, it is the way in which all seek to become “wise”, to think and see the law in a literal sense, a fundamental mis-appropriation of the Spirit. But really no doubt these texts have been argued over for centuries. At the very least what can be said is that there is within Paul’s thinking an undercurrent of unmediated understanding of God, without doctrinal specification, without external law - a law he saw as dividing the church, and ultimately man. “The letter is death, the spirit life”, but the “natural law is lettered” in man’s heart. Beneath all interpretation seems to be a radical instruction on how to read the “text” of the world. It is to be expressive of both deeds (the work of the law) and of Capacity and Divinity, but a referent of neither. We seem to be asked to understand that not only are we attempting to read the text of the world, but that we are also writing it.

Dunamis

Dunamis,

I applaud your serious attempt to stick to the words as written in the original Greek and in exploring them in context. It is not an easy task. I selfishly urge you to continue in that vein because it is so supportive.

Paul is such a master wordsmith that I tend to get lost in his words and lose track of what ideas he uses his skill in service of. He addressed and expanded on many of the teachings of Jesus, but while addressing and expanding on them he added to them and slanted them in a way that fundamentally altered their essence. He distorted the focus from the message of Jesus to the worship of Jesus. Jesus pointed a way; Paul said “worship the pointer.” In so doing he set Christianity on the path to where it is today.

I enjoyed your thought that:

In my seemingly repetitive and boring mantra, I refer to Exodus 3:14 (in the original ancient Hebrew) and I believe that the god named there is exactly what Paul is referring to. If you read on I think you will hear more Old Testament in Chapter 2 of Romans than you will hear teachings of Jesus. Try and reconcile what Paul says in this apart of Romans with Jesus teaching, “Judge not lest you be judged.” (Mt 7:1)

With regard to whether he is speaking to the initiated or uninitiated, I think Paul was a clever enough wordsmith to compose his letters in a way that they could be used to either group depending on who read them to whom. I think he knew that these were not to be read only once by a single follower, but multiple times by different followers to different groups. So it seems to me that Paul wrote with enough subtlety to allow the initiated to believe it was directed to them in their special status and to allow the uninitiated to believe he was addressing them with concepts that are easily within their grasp.

Water.,

“He distorted the focus from the message of Jesus to the worship of Jesus.”

The only thing I ask you, or anyone else to keep in mind is that Paul’s writings are the earliest writings we have from Christianity -minus any speculative theories about Q documents. Further, that they were written in the context of a fundamental split in the first generation of the Church, between the center of authority being anchored in Jerusalem (and in Judaic Law), and becoming an expansive and universalizing religion for even Greeks and “Barbarians”. The “Jesus” that we do have, particularly the synoptic Jesus -even Luke-, was composed by those those in the “other” camp, who centered their authority in Judaism, and which was in a power struggle with Paul, so it is impossible to know to what degree that Jesus was a polemical figure, and to what degree a “true” figure. Further of note, the gospels, all written after Paul’s letters, were also very likely written after the political revolt and Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and event far more shattering than any September 11th event, so they must be read in that context. To understand how holy, how law-ridden the temple was, Paul himself was reportedly jailed, and eventually executed for simply taking Gentiles into the Temple to mark their purification - a religio-political act if there ever was one. Keep in mind, the Temple itself now has been destroyed, wiped from the face of the earth. In this context - a Judaic based conception of the church, the violent elimination of Jerusalem as a political and spiritual center, and the fact that Paul wrote prior to that incredible event, I’m not sure how much you can separate the “real” Christianity from the polemical. Unless of course you want to read Jesus as some kind of spiritual yogi and strip the texts of the gospels of their entire historical content -such as the “invented” gospel of Thomas does-, and read the gospels as historical distortions of Lao Tzu or Buddha, as some are want to do. In many ways one can see that the gospels are commenting on -through the constructed figure of Jesus- the letters of Paul, and not the other way around.

Dunamis

Dunamis

The very fact that the gospel is meant for all in no way contradicts the idea of levels of understanding which at the bottom means complete scorn. Yet conditions can change and for one reason or another a person can begin to see that which he had been previously scorning, ridiculing, and everything else. Even Paul changed completely so he had practical knowledge of it. So this separation of believers/non-believers, has to be seen as ever changing.

The human condition is one thing and surveying the spiritual land of man, reveals the workings of samsara or “dust” from the Christian perspective. He doesn’t deny this. But he also knows that this is the world of sleeping man or the world of the spiritually dead in which some can awaken to.

But first you have to see it. This is the point. A person doesn’t truly see, allows their frustrated ego to dominate, begins to rationalize and literalize and liberalize and from these efforts, becomes an “expert” missing the point with flair.

Christendom follows the natural tendency to re-shuffle the human condition making it appear more acceptable. It assumes an ability to do this.

Christianity is concerned with the quality of the moment itself as a state of"presence". Once a person begins to function in the quality of the moment they begin to become conscious and also begin to be responsible in the deeper meaning of Paul’s writing.

Jesus considered the faith of the centurion to be extraordinary. Why? Because he had the ability to be responsible for so many below him in rank and appreciate his nothingness in relation to the higher realities. He had the ability to simultaneously join these two worlds within himself and begin to actualize “as is above, so below.” This is a high quality of a moment and it is this that Christianity is concerned with.

The human condition invites the appropriate universal karmic response that the ancient traditions recognize. Christianity offers an alternative. The primary purpose isn’t in the doing this or that. It is in the quality of the moments in which the sequence occurs and in the process of life itself… Recognize this and what Meister Eckhart says here will become clear:

Christendom concerns itself with what we “do”. And since we cannot do it but refuse to admit it, the hypocrisy soon becomes clear. Christianity is concerned with what we are in relation to our potential of re-birth. This is an abomination for the ego and quite understandable why Paul’s accurate description of himself as the “wretched man” is so widely rejected. Yet this is what Christianity begins to build on: our nothingness. It accepts us for what we are and there is no conflict between Jesus and Paul on this…

N.,

But first you have to see it. This is the point. A person doesn’t truly see, allows their frustrated ego to dominate, begins to rationalize and literalize and liberalize and from these efforts, becomes an “expert” missing the point with flair.

Paul specifically suggests that they have seen it. That all have seen it. That even Gentiles have it written in their heart. That the Unseen founding powers of God are evident in its manifestation. The Law, nor Paul, does not point it out in the text. (And there is no esoteric secret revelation here. It is made plain, to everyone). Rather, those that allow their “frustrated ego to dominate”, have “exchanged the truth for a lie”, not “have never seen the truth, and therefore embraced a lie”. There is a difference. The Unseen is seen and naturally known in these texts.

Also I believe your emphasis on the word “expert” is unnaturally weighted due to an problem in translation. The term is sophoi, it simply means those that think they know. Expert has additional connotations not necessarily in the Greek. The sophoi, are also philosophers. It can just as easily be translated “sage”.

Christendom concerns itself with what we “do”.

No need to turn to Meister Eckhart. It is in the very texts we have been looking at. The Gentile without law, makes [poiesis] the law, by doing the work of the law, that is manifesting it naturally, just as God’s unseen Capacity and Divinity which founded the Kosmos is manifested, through all that is made [poiesis]. That which is done expresses but does not describe.

Dunamis

Dunamis,

The historical record is not nearly as clear as you maintain. I find it problematic to attempt to discuss Biblical teachings through the lens of dates and authors. We need to admit that there is a good possibility that the Jesus of the gospels did not exist and that Paul did not write all the epistles credited to him. If you are stating that it is because of the need to respond to Paul’s writings that some individual or group of people authored the teachings and parables attributed to Jesus, then we all owe Paul a great deal of gratitude. However, we need to also acknowledge that despite the fact that there is not paper trail, it is very possible that the ideas embodied in the teachings and parables attributed to one Jesus Christ did predate Paul’s epistles. That is why I was so energized by your scholarly approach.

My main thought was that there is a definite and major difference between the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul. The question that I posed was: “Try and reconcile what Paul says in this part of Romans with Jesus teaching, “Judge not lest you be judged.” (Mt 7:1) I would add to that “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Mt 5:44-45). The historical and stylistic differences are questions that at this time are unanswerable. However, the words attributed to each are there for us to examine and I see a major difference between the philosophies of each. So my contention that Paul appears more Old Testament in Romans than Jesus does anywhere remains unaddressed as does my request to reconcile the gist and tone of Romans to the teachings of Jesus I noted.

Dunamis

Seeing and seeing with the whole of oneself in perspective are two different qualities of seeing.

As the “wretched man”, we cannot retain what we see so help is offered to get past this hurdle. Normally we fall prey to the experts both in the external world and in ourselves. The person goes wrong and becomes responsible when he loses the humility to realize his nothingness and the need for help. Consider the old Hasidic story about the Devil and the Imp who were on a street and began to follow a man who reaches down and picks up some truth.

Now the imp becomes frightened and concerned realizing that they’ve been exposed and expresses his fear to the Devil. Of course this wise old being has seen it all before so only smiles at his concerned associate telling him not to worry. He admits that he may have picked up a piece of the truth but “we’ll help him organize it.”

Ah yes, the devil is in the details.

The expert knows and interprets for you while a sage knows nothing. This is why Socrates was a sage. He admitted he knew nothing.

deleted

Dr. K

Yes, in the objective sense but we subjectively interpret them with the assistance of his expertise.

Dunamis

I don’t see how this differs in practice. Once we say “I know God beyond reason, and therefore I should life my life like this” one is already stepping beyond what ecstatic knowing can provide, I believe. Without breaking things down into concepts and principles, there is nothing to integrate our lives into.

I believe this to be an ideal state in an ideal world. However, in an ideal world, everybody would know God directly, and not fall away from Him. We create problems for ourselves. For example, a philosopher or a scientist may make a discovery that seems to conflict with what one believes about God. Or, a religious authority may teach something in conflict with what one reads in their Scripture. It may be that all reasoning about God can be traced back to Man’s fallen nature- that is, we use reason to solve the problems we (we humans, not each individual necessarily) create for ourselves. But that is nevertheless the reality we live in.