![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThe Fundamentalists teach that salvation depends solely on belief in Jesus Christ (and, consequently, acceptance of their social and political values). They base this on a narrow reading of some passages in scripture:
[John 3:16] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
[17] "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
[18] "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
[Romans 10:8] But what does [the Law] say? "The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
[10] for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
[11] For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed."
[12] For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
[13] for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
So, they claim, believe in Jesus and pray to the Lord and that's all it takes to be saved. They promote this view of "easy salvation" because it allows them to feel secure that they will go to heaven when they die, even though they support politicians who are actively hostile to efforts to aid the poor, end exploitation, and counter prejudicial injustice, things which Jesus seemed to think were pretty important.
Jesus was very clear that it is not enough simply to call him "Lord," but one must also "do the will of the Father who is in heaven." That will was expressed in Matthew 25:31-46 and elsewhere.
[Matthew 7:21] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
[22] "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
[23] "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'"
Fundamentalists counter this by claiming that Paul wrote that "works of the Law" are of no value in one's salvation (Romans 3:28). Throughout the Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes about the shortcomings of being human -- being governed by base desires, we are unable to reach out for God ourselves and are all thus hell-bound until we repent and believe in Jesus. This view culminates in the Calvinistic view that we are "totally depraved," so that nothing good that we do for someone else matters one bit towards our salvation; we rely completely on the grace of God to prevent us from meeting the eternal punishment we richly deserve.
Except that this is not really what Paul was saying at all. It is a myopic reading that contradicts what Jesus said about personal responsibility many times throughout his ministry. If this reading of Paul is correct, then Jesus would not have put so much emphasis on things like poverty, greed, and injustice.
Suppose, instead, that by "works of the Law" Paul meant things like being circumsized, keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, offering sacrifices, fasting, and giving tithes -- misused as outward displays of religious piety meant to shore up someone's claim of righteousness while they do nothing about social inequality. Jesus complained about the same thing:
[Luke 18:9] And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
[10] "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
[12] 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
[13] "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
[14] "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
This is not a tirade against the Pharisees, so much as it is against those who "exalt themselves" in their public piety.
Paul does not want people to stop adhering to the Law, he wants them to stop relying on outward displays of piety for assurance that they are in God's good graces. This is what Paul meant when he wrote, "May it never be [that we are nullifying the Law]! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31).
If so, what does Paul mean by writing that Christians are "died to the Law"?
[Romans 7:4] Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
[5] For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
[6] But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Ah, now it becomes more clear. Paul is opposed to religious literalism -- an ancient analogue of modern Fundamentalism. It is not the "oldness of the letter" or the written code that we should rely on, but the "the newness of the Spirit," the "law written on our hearts" (Romans 2:15). The written code, meant to bring life, becomes "death" (Romans 7:10-13) as we become entangled in its details, and spend our time haggling over the meanings of ancient words. Thus distracted, we are blind to the creeping of injustice into our hearts.
The Fundamentalists are required to interpret this to mean that the Law of Moses exists to "teach us the depths of our depravity," because they have to overlook it when both Paul and Jesus put emphasis on the spiritual essence of the Law, which is love.
[Romans 13:8] Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
[9] For this, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[Matthew 22:36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
[37] And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and and with all your mind.'
[38] "This is the great and foremost commandment.
[39] "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
[40] "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
By calling love for God and love for other people the greatest commandments, Jesus established a guideline by which to interpret scripture and tradition. In this light, any commandment that teaches love or compassion is higher than any other. Any use of a religious commandment that would lead to wrongdoing comes second to this. This was established vividly in the debate over the accused adulteress:
[John 8:3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
[4] they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
[5] "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
[6] They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
[7] But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
[8] Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
[9] When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
[10] Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
[11] She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."
The letter of the law would have required the woman be stoned. Instead Jesus interpreted the law by his guideline and saw that the woman's accusers were motivated not by love, but by hate. Religious codes can be used to bring forth good or bad, depending on people's motives; and Jesus could not support any use of doctrine that led to ill.
Many Fundamentalists claim that their actions are indeed driven by "love" -- by concern for people's "souls," which, we are supposed to believe, justifies their ostracism of gays and lesbians in the present day, and of Jews or black activists in the past. This is an old argument; Inquisitors claimed that they, too, were motivated by "love," claiming that the quest to save someone's soul is grave enough to justify any momentary discomfort.
In doing so they are no different from the woman's accusers. Jesus said, "You will know [false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). This is how we can tell someone who is righteous from a "wolf in sheep's clothing:" we examine what results they bring into the world.
Anyone who presents himself as a prophet or teacher wants us to think he is righteous, and so he will couch his words in religious terms. Thus we may find it hard to tell who is good or bad. We cannot judge by one's use of religious words alone. Jesus says, examine their fruits. Do their words flow with love, or do they bear hate and dissention? Do they inspire anger, fear, loathing? Or do they seek to bring people closer together?
The Epistle of James is the final nail in the coffin. It gives us no room for claiming that belief in Jesus is "all we need" for salvation in the absence of promoting love or working for justice. Significantly, this passage debunks the argument that Abraham was justified in the eyes of God by his belief alone. Abraham believed strongly enough to obey God, and it was his obeyance, James argues, that brought about his justification.
[James 2:14] What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
[15] If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
[16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
[17] Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
[18] But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
[19] You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
[20] But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
[22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
[23] and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was recokoned to him is righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God.
[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
There is some confusion here because both James and Paul use the word "works." But they mean them in a different sense. Paul means "the works of the Law," e.g. being circumsized, keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, offering sacrifices, giving tithes, etc. James means "obeying the will of the Father," in accord with what Jesus called the greatest commandments and what Paul called the summary of the Law -- in short, in accord with love.
[John 3:16] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
[17] "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
[18] "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
[Romans 10:8] But what does [the Law] say? "The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
[10] for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
[11] For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed."
[12] For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
[13] for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
So, they claim, believe in Jesus and pray to the Lord and that's all it takes to be saved. They promote this view of "easy salvation" because it allows them to feel secure that they will go to heaven when they die, even though they support politicians who are actively hostile to efforts to aid the poor, end exploitation, and counter prejudicial injustice, things which Jesus seemed to think were pretty important.
Jesus was very clear that it is not enough simply to call him "Lord," but one must also "do the will of the Father who is in heaven." That will was expressed in Matthew 25:31-46 and elsewhere.
[Matthew 7:21] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
[22] "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
[23] "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'"
Fundamentalists counter this by claiming that Paul wrote that "works of the Law" are of no value in one's salvation (Romans 3:28). Throughout the Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes about the shortcomings of being human -- being governed by base desires, we are unable to reach out for God ourselves and are all thus hell-bound until we repent and believe in Jesus. This view culminates in the Calvinistic view that we are "totally depraved," so that nothing good that we do for someone else matters one bit towards our salvation; we rely completely on the grace of God to prevent us from meeting the eternal punishment we richly deserve.
Except that this is not really what Paul was saying at all. It is a myopic reading that contradicts what Jesus said about personal responsibility many times throughout his ministry. If this reading of Paul is correct, then Jesus would not have put so much emphasis on things like poverty, greed, and injustice.
Suppose, instead, that by "works of the Law" Paul meant things like being circumsized, keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, offering sacrifices, fasting, and giving tithes -- misused as outward displays of religious piety meant to shore up someone's claim of righteousness while they do nothing about social inequality. Jesus complained about the same thing:
[Luke 18:9] And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
[10] "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
[12] 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
[13] "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
[14] "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
This is not a tirade against the Pharisees, so much as it is against those who "exalt themselves" in their public piety.
Paul does not want people to stop adhering to the Law, he wants them to stop relying on outward displays of piety for assurance that they are in God's good graces. This is what Paul meant when he wrote, "May it never be [that we are nullifying the Law]! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31).
If so, what does Paul mean by writing that Christians are "died to the Law"?
[Romans 7:4] Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
[5] For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
[6] But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Ah, now it becomes more clear. Paul is opposed to religious literalism -- an ancient analogue of modern Fundamentalism. It is not the "oldness of the letter" or the written code that we should rely on, but the "the newness of the Spirit," the "law written on our hearts" (Romans 2:15). The written code, meant to bring life, becomes "death" (Romans 7:10-13) as we become entangled in its details, and spend our time haggling over the meanings of ancient words. Thus distracted, we are blind to the creeping of injustice into our hearts.
The Fundamentalists are required to interpret this to mean that the Law of Moses exists to "teach us the depths of our depravity," because they have to overlook it when both Paul and Jesus put emphasis on the spiritual essence of the Law, which is love.
[Romans 13:8] Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
[9] For this, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[Matthew 22:36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
[37] And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and and with all your mind.'
[38] "This is the great and foremost commandment.
[39] "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
[40] "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
By calling love for God and love for other people the greatest commandments, Jesus established a guideline by which to interpret scripture and tradition. In this light, any commandment that teaches love or compassion is higher than any other. Any use of a religious commandment that would lead to wrongdoing comes second to this. This was established vividly in the debate over the accused adulteress:
[John 8:3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
[4] they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
[5] "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
[6] They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
[7] But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
[8] Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
[9] When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
[10] Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
[11] She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."
The letter of the law would have required the woman be stoned. Instead Jesus interpreted the law by his guideline and saw that the woman's accusers were motivated not by love, but by hate. Religious codes can be used to bring forth good or bad, depending on people's motives; and Jesus could not support any use of doctrine that led to ill.
Many Fundamentalists claim that their actions are indeed driven by "love" -- by concern for people's "souls," which, we are supposed to believe, justifies their ostracism of gays and lesbians in the present day, and of Jews or black activists in the past. This is an old argument; Inquisitors claimed that they, too, were motivated by "love," claiming that the quest to save someone's soul is grave enough to justify any momentary discomfort.
In doing so they are no different from the woman's accusers. Jesus said, "You will know [false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). This is how we can tell someone who is righteous from a "wolf in sheep's clothing:" we examine what results they bring into the world.
Anyone who presents himself as a prophet or teacher wants us to think he is righteous, and so he will couch his words in religious terms. Thus we may find it hard to tell who is good or bad. We cannot judge by one's use of religious words alone. Jesus says, examine their fruits. Do their words flow with love, or do they bear hate and dissention? Do they inspire anger, fear, loathing? Or do they seek to bring people closer together?
The Epistle of James is the final nail in the coffin. It gives us no room for claiming that belief in Jesus is "all we need" for salvation in the absence of promoting love or working for justice. Significantly, this passage debunks the argument that Abraham was justified in the eyes of God by his belief alone. Abraham believed strongly enough to obey God, and it was his obeyance, James argues, that brought about his justification.
[James 2:14] What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
[15] If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
[16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
[17] Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
[18] But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
[19] You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
[20] But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
[22] You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
[23] and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was recokoned to him is righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God.
[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
There is some confusion here because both James and Paul use the word "works." But they mean them in a different sense. Paul means "the works of the Law," e.g. being circumsized, keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, offering sacrifices, giving tithes, etc. James means "obeying the will of the Father," in accord with what Jesus called the greatest commandments and what Paul called the summary of the Law -- in short, in accord with love.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 06:51 pm (UTC)I like that thought.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 06:51 pm (UTC)His disciples questioned him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." (6)
Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you." (14)
"Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven." (44)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 07:37 pm (UTC)(still need to re-read your post but this leapt out to us)
Date: 2005-08-17 07:57 pm (UTC)link to the Sh'ma: http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm
not sure if you have seen the prayer before and wanted to show you...
shalom, gf! :-)
Eve & Co.
Re: (still need to re-read your post but this leapt out to us)
Date: 2005-08-18 02:55 pm (UTC)Re: (still need to re-read your post but this leapt out to us)
Date: 2005-08-18 05:30 pm (UTC)by the way, that is the only prayer that an observant Jewish woman is obligated to say by the law (halacha)... she is expected to say it twice a day, just as a man is obligated to do so... but the rest of the prayers that the man has to pray, she is exempt from...
Shalom,
Eve.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:17 pm (UTC)-- Matthew 5:43-48
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 08:11 pm (UTC)I'll have more to say, very soon, about this topic.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:56 am (UTC)"Ah, now it becomes more clear. Paul is opposed to religious literalism -- an ancient analogue of modern Fundamentalism."
Exactly! This extends to exegesis, too. Creationists should shudder outright when they read Galations 4:21-25, with an emphasis on verse 24:
[Galatians 4:21] Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
[22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
[23] His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
[24] These things may be taken figuratively [emphasis mine], for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
[25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
I just cannot understand how this is not a death-blow to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is--I think--a foundation of much of their heretical theology and Christology. Paul speaks figuratively many times and is interpeted literally--or perhaps it is better to say that he is simply interpreted wrongly.
Note that some translations of verse 24 are stronger than the NIV I quoted: instead of the effect of "they may be taken figuratively" it is more "these things are symbolic" or "these things should be interpreted allegorically".
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:00 pm (UTC)Huh, how had i missed that before? That gels perfectly with what i have read elsewhere about Paul being influenced by Philo of Alexandria.
The response i have received to questions of this sort is that literal reading of the text does not exclude *also* reading it figuratively. Of course, there are situations where this causes problems -- where the figurative reading goes in a very different direction and the text cannot support both. But then, literaist reading depends on reading 'myopically' and avoiding the fact that the "big picture" does not support their views.