In the parable of the Good Samaritan, many progressive christians love to focus on the social justice aspects of the parable. On the aspects of helping those in need. While that is certainly part of the parable, I'm not sure it's the whole thing.
Strangely enough, many progressive christians also deny things like the existence of an afterlife, the notion of a "Heaven" and a "Hell" (especially the latter), or the notion of a judgement. Yet, let's look at the question that was asked.
"On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Let's start with the obvious, either the lawyer was lying, or he was acknowledging that Jesus was in fact a "teacher" or "rabbi".
But, the question is about what must be done to "inherit eternal life". This implies that there is "eternal life", and that one must do something in order to "inherit eternal life". I think that most people would argue that "eternal life" is the equivalent of "Heaven", or "Paradise" (as Jesus referred to it). I also thing that the question certainly implies that "eternal life" is something to be desired.
Jesus response is also interesting.
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
Jesus seems pretty clear that the answer the lawyer seeks can be found in "the Law". Now, the Law could be referring to the part of the Hebrew scriptures that is known as "the Law", or it could be shorthand for the entire Hebrew scriptures. (The OT as we'd refer to it)
If Jesus was referring to only the books of the Law, also known as the Torah, he was referring to The what are now called;Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. So, it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus is telling the lawyer (and the reader) that one can find all of the knowledge necessary for "eternal life". Given the reality that many progressive christians tend not to take these five books literally, instead consigning them to the realm of "myth", it seems strange that Jesus would say this. Of course if "eternal life"/Heaven doesn't exist or if everyone gets in, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Obviously, if Jesus is referring to the entire Hebrew scriptures (The Tanakh), then the basic point is still valid as the Tanakh contains the Torah.
Finally, the lawyer answers, and he goes straight for Deuteronomy.
"He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
Jesus responds, “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”.
It's interesting, that the conversation should have ended right here. The lawyer got the right answer. He knows the secret. But he wants to "justify himself" and it goes on from there.
This seems pretty simple to me. Love God with every part of your being, and other people as much as you love yourself. The "who's my neighbor" question was a stupid and pointless attempt to get Jesus to say something that could be used against Him.
We know the rest, and Jesus hammers home His point by giving the lawyer a hypothetical that turns everything upside down. The reality is that when you follow the first commandment, the second should flow naturally.
A little confession here, even though I know this, I certainly don't love God with my entire being. Because my sin prevents me from the first, I often fail at the second. Which is why I thank God for his mercy and grace in redeeming me, and taking the burden away from my and my efforts.
Now, maybe that's really the point. That we CAN'T love God with our entire being because of our sin, which effects how we relate to others, and that the real answer the lawyer sought was standing right in front of him ready to pay the price for him.
33 comments:
Craig... ""On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Let's start with the obvious, either the lawyer was lying, or he was acknowledging that Jesus was in fact a "teacher" or "rabbi"."
Well, the text said he was part of the religious establishment trying to trick and catch Jesus so that they can kill him ("stood up to test Jesus..."). So, I'd say it sounds like, in context, he was mocking Jesus and trying to test him, by calling him "teacher." The Pharisees and religious experts often didn't agree with Jesus as a legitimate teacher because he was disrupting their power.
Again, in the context of the story of the Gospels. Right?
And that reinforces the story of Jesus bringing good news to the poor and oppressed, as a contrast to the bad news those in religious power brought.
Carrying on...
" “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” Jesus seems pretty clear that the answer the lawyer seeks can be found in "the Law". "
Or at least that Jesus recognized that this religious lawyer affirmed that HE thought the answer was in the Law/Scripture.
It could well be the same when I/progressive types try to hold more traditional/conservative types to the "literal Bible" that they say they believe in (literal-ISH... literal, until they don't want to take it literally).
Or that Jesus, like many of us, believed that the Scriptures, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, do hold answers.
Craig... "Given the reality that many progressive christians tend not to take these five books literally, instead consigning them to the realm of "myth", it seems strange that Jesus would say this."
? Why does it seem strange? Truths can be found in mythic/non-literal stories, you know this, right? You all seem to continually disdain the idea of myth or figurative stories as if they equate to "lies and misleading, untrustworthy claims..." But WE are not saying that. We don't disdain truths, whether they are found in figurative stories or literally historic stories. So again, what seems strange in that?
Craig... "Of course if "eternal life"/Heaven doesn't exist or if everyone gets in, then it doesn't really matter, does it?"
Why not? I would think it matters just in how we live. What must we do to inherit the Right Way and an eternal name? Also, the question - if it were offered in good faith, which doesn't appear to be the case - is also able to be boiled down to, "What is the right way to live?" and that question matters to everyone.
Another question from another literal passage from you: "The Son of Man came to seek and save the Lost..." Did Jesus mean, literally to "save the lost..." as in ALL the lost (as, indeed, many other passages literally affirm)? If, as you all believe, Jesus could not and did not save ALL the lost - not even MOST of the lost, does that render Jesus' work meaningless and that he was a failure? Or, perhaps worse, that Jesus NEVER intended and didn't WANT to save ALL the lost, but only "the elect," a tiny percentage of humanity and literally to hell with the rest... how does that human tradition square with the literal passages that he'd come to save ALL the people?
cont'd...
Craig...
"Finally, the lawyer answers, and he goes straight for Deuteronomy.
"He answered,
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and
with all your strength and
with all your mind’; and,
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Jesus responds,
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied.
“Do this and you will live.”."
So, Jesus' answer - Do this, Love God and Love humanity - and "you will live" squares firmly with the notion that Jesus came preaching good news to the poor and marginalized because, as Jesus repeatedly makes abundantly clear, when you love the poor and marginalized in a serious and Good News way (ie, actually welcoming and siding with and helping them), THEN you are loving God and loving your neighbor.
So, again, all this squares with "the liberal" view of taking Jesus' message of Good News to the poor and marginalized fairly seriously and literally.
I agree with the passages in question. But then, you offer an alternative, non-literal interpretation, saying
"That we CAN'T love God with our entire being because of our sin, which effects how we relate to others, and that the real answer the lawyer sought was standing right in front of him ready to pay the price for him."
Well, that's a fanciful theory and I know that it aligns with traditional conservative opinions about the topic, but it's literally not in the text or context. Jesus never says, "Do this and you will live... AHA! But it's a gag! A sick joke, sucker! YOU CAN'T "DO THIS!" you worthless blob of flesh! You gonna burnnnnnn..."
Jesus nowhere says that in this text of the context of his teachings. And what an awful "savior" that would be, wouldn't it?
But simply, love God and love people - beginning with the poor - is.
What's the point? That this passage somehow affirms this conservative human traditional understanding of ransom-payment god? I don't see how.
"Again, in the context of the story of the Gospels. Right?'
Perhaps you didn't actually read what I wrote and therefore felt the need to restate my comment is a much more verbose way, and try to force it into the form of a question. Read carefully before you comment.
When you randomly sprinkle punctuation throughout your comments in improper places, it makes no sense and guarantees that I'll ignore it.
"Why not?"
Because this passage is specifically about doing what is necessary to achieve "eternal life", if that doesn't exist then why would you chase something that doesn't exist. Likewise, if everyone gets in regardless of what they do, then why bother with trying to do the "right" thing because it doesn't make a difference.
"I would think it matters just in how we live. What must we do to inherit the Right Way and an eternal name?"
When you make shit up, and add your own hunches, it simply makes things less clear.
Craig... ""felt the need to restate my comment is [sic] a much more verbose way..."
?
I didn't restate your comment. You offered two options:
"either the lawyer was lying,
or
he was acknowledging that Jesus was in fact a "teacher" or "rabbi"."
In the context of the story in question, there is a third option that is fairly clearly spelled out: He was trying to trap Jesus and didn't give a damn about him as a "teacher."
Did you not understand that point I made and how that is what the most likely take on the line in question?
Also, this is hardly germane to the overall point of your post. Just pointing out that you misunderstood my words and that I was not merely restating your likely mistaken hunches/your two options.
"So, Jesus' answer - Do this, Love God and Love humanity - and "you will live" squares firmly with the notion that Jesus came preaching good news to the poor and marginalized because, as Jesus repeatedly makes abundantly clear, when you love the poor and marginalized in a serious and Good News way (ie, actually welcoming and siding with and helping them), THEN you are loving God and loving your neighbor."
1. Of course it does.
2. Of course, doesn't necessitate YOUR extrabiblical hunches based on your woodenly literal take that the term "poor' can ONLY mean the materially poor.
3. I'm not sure where Jesus uses the term "marginalized", nor am I convinced that He'd mean the same thing you do, if He did.
4. Of course, by making actions primary you simply advocate some form of works righteousness.
"Well, that's a fanciful theory and I know that it aligns with traditional conservative opinions about the topic, but it's literally not in the text or context."
Are you really suggesting that you can and do perfectly love God with ALL of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and that you perfectly love all of humanity exactly as you love yourself? Of course, if you look at the entire context of Jesus teachings and the NT, the notion that we are incapable of fulfilling the law is present as well as the notion that Jesus sacrifice does what we can't. Didn't Jesus say something like "With man nothing is possible, but with God all things are possible."?
"Jesus never says, "Do this and you will live... AHA! But it's a gag! A sick joke, sucker! YOU CAN'T "DO THIS!" you worthless blob of flesh! You gonna burnnnnnn..."
Not in this interaction. Of course, Jesus never taught that our works make us righteous.
"Jesus nowhere says that in this text of the context of his teachings. And what an awful "savior" that would be, wouldn't it?"
Really, nowhere. Are you absolutely sure or is it that you simply interpret those instances where He does as "hyperbole"?
"What's the point?"
The point is that many progressive christians focus on the fact that they believe that the good works of the Samaritan are what makes him praiseworthy. While ignoring that fact that Jesus seems to be suggesting much more than a crass works righteousness.
"That this passage somehow affirms this conservative human traditional understanding of ransom-payment god?"
If you mean the "conservative human traditional understanding" aligns with the teachings of the NT and of Jesus, then sure. Did not Jesus Himself say "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”?
"I don't see how."
That's abundantly clear. Of course what you can or can't see has no bearing on what is True. Your ability to "see" something has no bearing on whether of not something aligns with scripture. In short, I see no reason to concern myself with what you can or cannot see. If you can attempt to dismiss something as a "human understanding", while offering as the standard for doing so that you "can't see", then you're simply substituting your personal "human understanding" for one that has you don't care for. Not a compelling argument.
Craig... "Are you really suggesting that you can and do perfectly love God with ALL of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and that you perfectly love all of humanity exactly as you love yourself?"
No. I'm saying that IN THIS TEXT, Jesus did not in any way suggest that this man (or anyone) can't possibly love God and love people. Can we PERFECTLY love God and people? No. BUT, this text does not demand perfection.
You see that, right? It's literally not there.
Indeed, Jesus affirmed the lawyer saying, "yup, do that and live..." as if it were a do-able thing, as indeed, it IS do-able. Many of us often love God and love people. It's observable.
Do we do so perfectly?
No.
But then, grace, love, forgiveness and reason do not demand perfection out of imperfect people, do they?
Craig... "The point is that many progressive christians focus on the fact that they believe that the good works of the Samaritan are what makes him praiseworthy."
Oh really? Who? Name some and cite their words.
The point is not "being nice makes you nice and it's nice when you're nice." Progressives aren't that vapid.
The point of this passage - and the point I'm making - is that the whole of the law is summed up in Love God and Love Humans, Go and do this. AND begin with the poor and the least of these, the strugglers and yes, the marginalized, because that's where Jesus began. As this passage makes quite abundantly clear. And not only that, but this expectation of living into a way of Grace, a beloved community IS something that we can do, albeit imperfectly, and that way of Grace does not demand perfection.
In short, progressives are not saying that this story is about the Good Samaritan, at all. It's about accepting God's grace and following in that way of Grace, that way of the beloved community, that way of loving your neighbor in deed, as well as in words.
I suspect you may be reading some progressives' words and misreading their meaning and intentions, as you appear to be misreading this story.
Craig... " Did not Jesus Himself say "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”?"
Yes. ONE TIME he mentioned Ransom. And what was the context of that phrase?
Matt 20:
Begins with the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. The point of which is that God may well choose to be gracious and give beyond what might be expected, EVEN for the "lazy ones" who didn't start working until the end of the day... and there's nothing wrong with that.
"So the last will be first and the first, last..."
It continues with Jesus saying that soon, the pharisees and powerful religious people would capture him, torture him and kill him (have the Gentiles kill him) and that he would overcome that death on the third day.
From there, we see John and James' mother asking Jesus for a special honor for her sons. In THAT context, Jesus responds...
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones exercise authority over them.
It shall not be so among you.
But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The point Jesus is making here is not about magic holy blood that can "pay for" the "sins" of people. It's about the Way of Grace, the Way of the Beloved Community, the Way of Welcome and a world in which the last (the poor, the oppressed, the stranger, the marginalized) will be first and the "great" ones will be last.
As Mary sang in the Magnificat, that the humble will be lifted up and the mighty brought down.
As Jesus said that he was bringing good news specifically to the poor and marginalized.
And as the Good Samaritan demonstrated by tending to one of the "hated ones," the marginalized and unwelcome ones.
This notion of ransom here in this text and context is very much in alignment with the Gospel to the poor and the Way of the Beloved Community.
And, as an aside, where you complain about my use of "the marginalized" term to refer to all the actually marginalized people Jesus regularly spoke of and for and with - the poor, women, the outsiders, the foreigners, the diseased and lame, the oppressed... - OF COURSE, these are all marginalized people in the context of that world. There's nothing at all wrong or unbiblical in my use of that phrase as a catch-all. It's similar to saying "the least of these" to refer to the same broad group of humanity that Jesus came to preach the good news specifically to.
And, as another aside, I've never said that "the poor" can't ALSO be more generally metaphorical of those in need in one way or another... just that it can't be dismissed as NOT being specifically about the literally poor and marginalized, not in the text or context.
Craig... "Jesus never taught that our works make us righteous."
I think you are reading my words and misunderstanding. I'm not saying "our works make us righteous." I'm not a believer in a salvation by works.
What I'm saying is that Jesus came clearly preaching a Way.
That Way was preached as Good news to the poor and marginalized. It was a Way of Welcome, specifically and especially for the poor and "least of these" who have so often been UN-welcome in this world. It was a way of welcome for all, but beginning with the least of these, because when one plants welcome and grace and justice for the very lowest in the world, that grace and justice and welcome grow UPWARDS to the rest of us, so long as we're not actively opposed to grace and justice and welcome... we all can be included when it begins with the least of these.
That Way is the Way of the Beloved Community of Welcome. It is the Way of Grace and in that Way, the point is not about being perfectly good - when that is an impossible feat for imperfect humans. It's about grace and welcome and forgiveness and it is through GRACE that we are saved, not by our works.
Not by believing "just right" and affirming in just the right way that Jesus is Lord. For that way - legalism, which says you have to affirm certain beliefs and ideas in just the right way of you can't be saved - is a way that leads to death and disharmony and un-welcome-ness.
It's Grace, man. And Grace is a Way, a way of living in love and grace. And it's not a salvation based upon works and I've never said otherwise.
Dan,
Before this goes further, I want to clarify something. The point of this post is NOT to suggest that I am interpreting this passage with 100% accuracy. My point is that many people focus on the second half of the passage (the parable), while I'm suggesting that there is more to be gleaned from the first part which gets ignored more often. I'm suggesting that perhaps the parable was not necessary, had the lawyer chosen not to "justify" himself, or chosen not to try to excuse his prejudices.
I know that you are obsessed with trying to pigeonhole the gospel to fit your narrative based on the one instance of Jesus quoting the Isaiah prophecy. I know that you are committed to the position that the term "poor' can only mean materially poor and that you'll not accept any other possibility.
What I'm trying to do is not to reinforce my personal opinions about familiar passages, but to look beyond the easy, obvious, interpretations to see if there is more there. If you aren't interested in being open to other possibilities, that's fine. But perhaps insisting on your own personal hunches as the only option for everyone is not the best choice either.
"Indeed, Jesus affirmed the lawyer saying, "yup, do that and live..." as if it were a do-able thing, as indeed, it IS do-able. Many of us often love God and love people. It's observable."
So are you really suggesting that if we "love God and love people" that we will inherit "eternal life"? That simply participating in those specific actions at some minimal level will be sufficient to inherit "eternal life"? Hell, are you suggesting that you believe that there is such a thing as "eternal life"?
"Can we PERFECTLY love God and people? No. BUT, this text does not demand perfection.
You see that, right? It's literally not there."
Are you suggesting that you personally are loving God with "ALL your heart, mind, soul and spirit"? And that you are loving your neighbors exactly as you love yourself? Are you suggesting that it is possible for any human to love God with "ALL" of every aspect of one's being?
Personally, as I watch you interact with people online, I don't see any evidence of this love you claim to have for your "neighbor".
"Oh really? Who? Name some and cite their words."
I don't have time right now, but I'll try to pull something together. Unlike you, I'll actually do what I say.
"The point of this passage - and the point I'm making -"
This is quite an impressive display of hubris. Your insistence that you personally can authoritatively declare that there is only one "point to this passage" and that you are in possession of that knowledge is quite a claim. I'd ask for proof, but you would provide it, so I won't ask.
"is that the whole of the law is summed up in Love God and Love Humans,"
1. Aren't laws and rules functionally the same thing?
2. Isn't the way of Jesus about not following any rules?
3. If the csntruct is "love God and love humans", why would you think that "humans' doesn't mean all humans? Why would God suggest prioritizing those we are to love?
4. My point exactly. The answer to the question is found in the Torah, it's been there all along, and the lawyer already knew the answer.
"Go and do this."
So we have to go and follow this rule/law in order to inherit "eternal life"? Are you suggesting that the only way we can "inherit eternal life" is by our actions? Aren't "go" and "do" actions?
"AND begin with the poor and the least of these, the strugglers and yes, the marginalized, because that's where Jesus began."
Interesting that when Jesus quoted the Isiah prophecy, He was literally in a synagogue where the observant Jews gathered to worship, not actually preaching to the "poor and marginalized".
"As this passage makes quite abundantly clear. And not only that, but this expectation of living into a way of Grace, a beloved community IS something that we can do, albeit imperfectly, and that way of Grace does not demand perfection."
Yet, this passage doesn't mention "the poor and marginalized" nor "grace", apparently you've just decided to add those things that aren't actually mentioned at all.
It's strange that I actually suggested that the answer to the lawyer's question was the person who answered, and that without Jesus, we are unable to "Love God with ALL of our being and to love others exactly as we love ourselves. Which is pretty much how most people would define grace.
"In the context of the story in question, there is a third option that is fairly clearly spelled out: He was trying to trap Jesus and didn't give a damn about him as a "teacher.""
In other words, he was lying.
It's always gratifying when you meet my expectations and act as I suspected you would act. Unfortunately, I don't buy your creative attempt to redefine what Jesus "meant" by "ransom for many". It's creative and I'm sure you think it makes perfect sense, but It's not in any way a convincing argument that would compel me to think that you actually know what Jesus "meant". Especially when your hunch about what He "meant" doesn't actually align with what He said.
"I think you are reading my words and misunderstanding. I'm not saying "our works make us righteous." I'm not a believer in a salvation by works."
No, I think I understand you when you say " the whole of the law is summed up in Love God and Love Humans, Go and do this.", that you are saying that our actions "Go and do" are required by the "whole of the law".
Beyond that, you've floated this "way of Jesus" drivel before and it still doesn't make sense when looked at in the context of the entirety of scripture, or even of the context of the entirety of Jesus teaching.
Finally, if you are suggesting that your behavior when responding to other "humans" on various blogs is evidence of how you love others, then I'd suggest that you are failing at actually loving others and that your actions don't match your claims.
Dan,
The fact that your actions have caused Stan to stop posting comments at his blog is not my fault, responsibility, or problem. Further, if I asked a question at Stan's, it was not directed to you. Since I know you have lost your privilege to comment there, why would I ask you a question there? Given those realities, I see no reason to post your off topic, "answer" to a question that I didn't ask you in this thread. You are welcome to write whatever you want at your blog, and should feel free to do so. As you've banned me from commenting at your blog, you can post your justifications and excuses without fear of contradiction. But, I indulge your propensity to wander off topic enough as it is and see no reason to further encourage you to do so.
Craig... "Beyond that, you've floated this "way of Jesus" drivel before and it still doesn't make sense when looked at in the context of the entirety of scripture, or even of the context of the entirety of Jesus teaching."
You find the Way of Jesus to be drivel. No wonder he is such a mystery to you!
Look, you are free to think that taking Jesus fairly literally and seriously;
that interpreting the obscure and hard to understand through the clear;
and interpreting the rest of the Bible through the teachings of Jesus...
is not rational or doesn't lead one to the conclusions I and many others have reached, but clearly, we disagree with your opinions.
We find it offensive to the church to subordinate Jesus' clear teachings to the human interpretations of Paul's teachings. But you are certainly welcome to your opinion.
But surely you recognize how their is a large swath of the church throughout church history and a large swath of humanity that recognizes that Jesus CLEARLY is speaking a great deal about literal wealth and literal poverty?
Do you recognize that we do so based upon fairly direct and clear teachings straight from the red lettered mouth of Jesus?
Do you recognize and understand how we think that not only does Jesus speak a great deal about literal wealth and poverty, that it is core to his Gospel?
Do you understand how we see VERY little in the actual Gospels/red letters/words of Jesus that would endorse the traditional conservative evangelical human tradition of something like a Penal Substitutionary Atonement? AND a great deal about a Gospel for the poor and marginalized?
Do you recognize that just word for word, pound for pound, Jesus literally at least APPEARS to clearly be speaking of a Gospel of the poor and marginalized throughout the Gospels?
All of that to say, do you understand how very seriously we are taking the words of Jesus when we reach these conclusions and that we're not just making something up out of thin air?
Craig...
"1. Aren't laws and rules functionally the same thing?"
No.
"2. Isn't the way of Jesus about not following any rules?"
No. But I suspect you have read my words and concluded that's what I've said. But there again, your ability to read my words and correctly understand my meaning is continually shown to be lacking.
"3. If the csntruct is "love God and love humans", why would you think that "humans' doesn't mean all humans?"
I DO think it means all humans. I suspect you've read my words and reached an incorrect conclusion about what I'm saying. Again.
"Why would God suggest prioritizing those we are to love?"
The best answer to this is you'd have to ask God as it's a teaching from God and Jesus.
But my guess, based upon the teachings of Jesus, the prophets and the whole Bible is that when we are loving the poor and marginalized, THEN we have our priorities in a closer to right order. When we recognize the debilitating tendency of greed and wealth and align with the poor as our starting point, we're going to be better focused to understand how best to love.
The thing is, we ARE imperfect humans with imperfect understanding of what it means to love others as ourselves. When we begin with loving the least of these, we are acting as Jesus acted and following his model. And that's going to help best understand how to love everyone.
For instance: The rich man is wanting to pour pollution into the stream that runs past a bunch of poor people's homes. He says "It's so I can better give the poor people jobs and pay them more!" That sounds sort of reasonable. But the poor people say, "We definitely want to have jobs and get adequate pay, but if we're getting sick and dying from that pollution, it's not that helpful." And so, listening to both groups and loving both, I begin by leaning into siding with the poor folks. It helps ground me in Jesus' way (which I know you find to be drivel), I suspect we'll be in a better place to do the right thing.
"4. My point exactly. The answer to the question is found in the Torah, it's been there all along, and the lawyer already knew the answer."
Okay. So?
Craig... "So we have to go and follow this rule/law in order to inherit "eternal life"? Are you suggesting that the only way we can "inherit eternal life" is by our actions? Aren't "go" and "do" actions?"
Yes. So? Isn't repenting an action? Isn't "making Jesus the Lord of your life" an action?
What's your point?
Craig... "I think I understand you when you say " the whole of the law is summed up in Love God and Love Humans, Go and do this.", that you are saying that our actions "Go and do" are required by the "whole of the law""
You read, but don't understand. I did not say that our actions are "required by the whole of the law IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. I said it is this Way of Grace taught by Jesus that saves us. Accepting that way. Believing in that Way. Living into that Way. But it is the Grace by which we are saved, not our actions.
See the difference? Can I be any more clear that I do not believe we are saved by our good works? By our actions? We are saved by Grace and we live into that Grace as we are saved and that Grace is Welcoming and loving and forgiving and siding with the poor and marginalized. The point is not the action because we are imperfect and will not fully live up to the actions of love and grace. The point is grace and accepting that grace.
Speaking of, what do you mean when you say we're saved by grace (which I presume you affirm, as well)? Do you mean that we are saved by the Grace of Jesus getting killed and shedding his blood and that LITERAL blood pays off any anger that God might have towards us and our sins?
I know some evangelicals use terms like "We are covered by the blood of Jesus, our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus..." but none of that literally happens. It's a metaphor, right? Or do you think that Jesus' LITERAL blood is used like, what? a sponge? to "wash away" our sin? But sin is not a tactile object that can be washed, so that has to be a metaphor, right?
Do you mean that God demands a "payment" of "death" for each of our sins/for us being sinners and that Jesus said, "I'll die/be killed and you can count my death on behalf of them..."? But what if a mother had a son who'd killed someone and the mother says, "You can kill me on behalf of my son and he, the actual killer, will go free..."? But how does that satisfy justice? If it were your loved one who was killed by that son, would you be satisfied that he went free while his mom faced capitol punishment? Wouldn't that be a travesty of Justice?
Care to try to spell out what you mean by "saved by grace," if you believe it?
Craig... "and that without Jesus, we are unable to "Love God with ALL of our being and to love others exactly as we love ourselves. Which is pretty much how most people would define grace."
? So, is it your opinion that "with Jesus" we ARE able to love God with all of our being and to love others exactly as ourselves?
I rather doubt that you believe that, but you tell me.
My position (based every bit as much on observable data and reason as the Bible) is that we are imperfect human beings and thus, unable to perfectly Love God or other humans, but that we CAN love God and humans... just imperfectly. And that's true whether or not we're saved.
Do you think something else?
Put another way, HERE is what I said...
"I think you are reading my words and misunderstanding. I'm not saying "our works make us righteous." I'm not a believer in a salvation by works."
HERE is what you THINK that means...
No, I think I understand you
when you say
"the whole of the law is summed up in Love God and Love Humans, Go and do this.",
that you are saying that
our actions "Go and do" are required by the "whole of the law".
Well, that IS what Jesus said, "If you want to receive eternal life, love God and love your neighbor."
Am I mistaken that this is what Jesus said in this text?
But nonetheless, I don't think that is a full explanation of what receiving eternal life means. It's not merely loving everyone. And it's not PERFECTLY loving everyone.
It's grace, which is lived out in loving God and loving others. But if we mistake it for merely following rules about what it means to love others, we have missed the point of grace.
Regardless, when I said that passage was summed up as love God and love people, that IS how it was summed up in that passage. That's not the same as me saying we are saved by grace, not works. I'm just noting the reality that this is how Jesus sums up that passage, how he sums up the law.
Am I mistaken?
And I'm noting the reality that he never said (in this passage or elsewhere) that we imperfect human beings have to PERFECTLY Love God "with ALL our hearts" and perfectly love people to be saved.
Am I mistaken?
Dan asked me to provide examples of progressive christians who are interpreting this parable as merely do good works, and even though I heard one do exactly that (Kyle Jackson, local pastor), what I'm finding is that much of the progressive christian interpretations I've been able to find are closer to my post, and further from Dan's hunch. I'll keep looking, but if I can't find anything, I guess I'll have to amend my original claim.
"Am I mistaken?"
Clearly you don't believe you are and you haven't given me anything besides your hunches that would demonstrate whether you are mistaken or not.
"And I'm noting the reality that he never said (in this passage or elsewhere) that we imperfect human beings have to PERFECTLY Love God "with ALL our hearts" and perfectly love people to be saved. Am I mistaken?"
You're obviously never mistaken.
The problem with your claim about not being mistaken is that it presumes that there actually is an objectively right/wrong answer, which you haven't demonstrated.
Dan,
Before I slog though more of your comments, I feel like I need to repeat myself.
I think that you are confused about what I am trying to accomplish with this post. I am NOT trying to suggest that my thoughts about this passage are right, and that any other interpretation is wrong. I'm not even saying that the more common interpretation of the passage is without value.
What I am questioning is whether or not we get so wrapped up in the familiarity of the story, that we miss other aspects that also have value.
You appear to be obsessed with proving your hunches to not be "mistaken", that you've actually ignored what I've said.
"You find the Way of Jesus to be drivel."
No, I find your hunches to be drivel. I don't conflate your hunches with Jesus teachings.
"But surely you recognize how their is a large swath of the church throughout church history and a large swath of humanity that recognizes that Jesus CLEARLY is speaking a great deal about literal wealth and literal poverty?"
Of course I do. The problem is with your hunch that Jesus is exclusively speaking only of material poverty as you interpret Jesus' words in a woodenly literal fashion.
"Do you recognize that we do so based upon fairly direct and clear teachings straight from the red lettered mouth of Jesus?"
When you ask the same question (differently) twice before I can answer, can you understand how frustrating that is?
"Do you recognize and understand how we think that not only does Jesus speak a great deal about literal wealth and poverty, that it is core to his Gospel?"
Yes, I recognize that you (singular as I despise your use of "we" as if you represent some huge group of people as their spokesperson. It's hubris and ridiculous.) believe that hunch. Unfortunately, you haven't proven your hunch to be True, therefore I don't find your hunch compelling.
"Do you understand how we see VERY little in the actual Gospels/red letters/words of Jesus that would endorse the traditional conservative evangelical human tradition of something like a Penal Substitutionary Atonement?"
Again, I recognize that you hold this hunch. I also recognize that there are people who disagree. Again, I don't find your hunch compelling because you haven't provided anything that explains away that which doesn't conform to you hunch.
"AND a great deal about a Gospel for the poor and marginalized?"
Do you really think that simply repeating your hunches accomplishes anything? Where does Jesus use the term "marginalized"?
"Do you recognize that just word for word, pound for pound, Jesus literally at least APPEARS to clearly be speaking of a Gospel of the poor and marginalized throughout the Gospels?"
Again, I recognize that you believe your hunch about this. I also haven't seen any compelling proof that would make me believe that your hunch is True.
"All of that to say, do you understand how very seriously we are taking the words of Jesus when we reach these conclusions and that we're not just making something up out of thin air?"
Yes, I understand that when you make stuff up out of thin air, or proof text one small passage as if it is the be all and end all, how serious that can be.
"So, is it your opinion that "with Jesus" we ARE able to love God with all of our being and to love others exactly as ourselves?"
No. Are you suggesting that as long as we kind of try to do our best at loving some people with some of our being, and some people with a fraction of our self love, that that's plenty?
"I rather doubt that you believe that, but you tell me."
Then why ask the question?
"My position (based every bit as much on observable data and reason as the Bible) is that we are imperfect human beings and thus, unable to perfectly Love God or other humans, but that we CAN love God and humans... just imperfectly. And that's true whether or not we're saved. Do you think something else?"
I don't care about your hunch.
I think that "Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
I'm simply done with your continued recitation of your hunches presented as if they were True. I appreciate the rare treat of you actually answering questions, and feel like it should be acknowledged when it happens.
But, given your fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing here, your obsession with demanding that others agree with your hunches about what Jesus really "meant", and my lack of time to deal with the mountain of repetitive drivel, I'm just going to post your comments and not waste any more time with them.
Dan...
"So, is it your opinion that "with Jesus" we ARE able to love God with all of our being and to love others exactly as ourselves?"
Craig...
"No. Are you suggesting that as long as we kind of try to do our best at loving some people with some of our being, and some people with a fraction of our self love, that that's plenty?"
That's plenty, for what? I'm saying that generally speaking, yes that's plenty. Imperfect people loving one another imperfectly and loving God imperfectly is what we can reasonably expect.
What are you suggesting as an alternative?
And my question came up because you had said...
"It's strange that I actually suggested that the answer to the lawyer's question was the person who answered [Presumably Jesus, yes?], and that without Jesus, we are unable to "Love God with ALL of our being and to love others exactly as we love ourselves."
So, it SOUNDED like you were saying that Jesus is the answer to the lawyer's question (what must I do to receive eternal life? - JESUS is "what you must do") and that, WITHOUT Jesus, we are unable to love perfectly. Which sounds like you're implying that WITH Jesus, we CAN "love God with ALL our being and to love others exactly as we love ourselves...". But you've just confirmed that you're not saying that. If so, what's the point of saying "Without Jesus, we can't love perfectly... and also, WITH Jesus, we can't love perfectly..."?
I'm just curious why you wrote that if there was no point/no hope of being able to love perfectly.
And THEN you respond by saying (when I note that observably, we can't love perfectly)...
"I don't care about your hunch. "
Here's the difference: I'm saying that based on what the Bible literally says and based upon objective observation, we CAN'T love perfectly, as no mere mortal ever has. And you consider that a "hunch..."? Why is that not just observably factual?
Are you saying that we CAN love perfectly? But you've already affirmed you don't believe that (with or without Jesus)... so again, what's your point in calling this a hunch?
You continued...
"I don't care about your hunch.
I think that "Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
?? So, you DO think that "all things are possible..." including imperfect humans loving perfectly (or, if you prefer, with ALL our hearts and loving our neighbors EXACTLY as we love ourselves)?
Your vagueness and seeming self-contradictions make it unclear what point you're trying to make. Respond or not, that's just what I'm seeing. Choose to remain vague and self-contradicting and unclear if you wish.
Dan's use of the word "marginalized" is not simply to label all those of ancient times to whom the powers that be condescended or ignored or "oppressed". It's to draw a connection to those the Bible describes and those lefties like Dan enables, celebrates, and excuses despite their clear rejection of God's will.
"That's plenty, for what?" Well, according to the passage, to "inherit eternal life". Or in different vernacular, to be saved, go to heaven, or be with Jesus in paradise.
"What are you suggesting as an alternative?"
An alternative to what? I'm suggesting that “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”, applies in this circumstance.
"I'm just curious why you wrote that if there was no point/no hope of being able to love perfectly."
Except, that I didn't write that. I answered your question simply and directly, you're making assumptions about why I answered the way I did.
"Why is that not just observably factual?"
1. Are you suggesting that this is "observably factual" because the Bible says so? If so then that's a first.
2. You're limited observations and assumptions about a small sample of other people, aren't enough to support a premise that something is "factual".
Since your use of punctuation in nonstandard ways makes no sense, I'll choose to ignore the nonsensical statement.
I'm sorry that you're confused by my not being engaged in your attempts to make this thread about something other than the point of my post. I'm sorry that you simply repeating your various hunches isn't compelling enough for me to waste my time following your down various rabbit holes. I'm sorry that my choice of simple direct answers confuses you.
Craig... "1. Are you suggesting that this is "observably factual" because the Bible says so? If so then that's a first."
It's observably factual that there are no perfect human beings - that we can't love our neighbors perfectly, that we can't perfectly love God with ALL our hearts, the claims you made that we can't do apart from Jesus. I was just noting that it's observable that we can't do these things WITH OR WITHOUT Jesus and that this is observable, as we can see that there is no one who perfectly loves their neighbor? And while "Love God with ALL our hearts" may not be observable, I've never heard of anyone who claims they can do so (with the exception of narcissists and mentally unstable people). So, it's observable that we are not perfect in these ways was my claim.
Do you disagree?
"I was just noting that it's observable that we can't do these things WITH OR WITHOUT Jesus and that this is observable, as we can see that there is no one who perfectly loves their neighbor?"
Even though the preceding "question" doesn't really make sense as it's formulated, I'll give it a try.
Claiming that it's "observable" that we can't do things "WITH" Jesus, is quite the claim. I'd like to see proof of that claim before I take it seriously.
I don't understand how simply placing a ? at the end of a declarative statement makes it a question.
"And while "Love God with ALL our hearts" may not be observable, I've never heard of anyone who claims they can do so (with the exception of narcissists and mentally unstable people). So, it's observable that we are not perfect in these ways was my claim."
"Do you disagree?"
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
If my choice is agreeing with you and your small sample size claims, or with Jesus, I'll take Jesus.
I think that the problem we have goes back to the original question that Jesus was asked.
The question was regarding what it takes to inherit "eternal life".
I'd argue that if this is the goal, then simply being satisfied with muddling along and doing the "best" we can as sinful, fallen humans, doesn't seem adequate. Just being satisfied with half assing it, and comparing ourselves to other people, doesn't seem like it should be enough for "eternal life" in the very presence of YHWH.
The problem is that we don;t really know what you think the end game or goal is. We don;t know if you think that "eternal life" is really a thing. We don't know if you think "eternal life" is something to seek or that has any value.
I'm placing my hope on Jesus and His words ("Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”) and acknowledging that I can't do it on my own. I'm confident that "I'm slightly better than those people." will do me any good when I stand before Jesus.
But how abut this. You do things the way you think best, in order to pursue whatever goal you think worthy.
I'll simply note that if your interactions on various blogs are any indication, then maybe you need to spend some time reconsidering who your neighbors are, and what love actually looks like.
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
"A little confession here, even though I know this, I certainly don't love God with my entire being. Because my sin prevents me from the first, I often fail at the second. Which is why I thank God for his mercy and grace in redeeming me, and taking the burden away from my and my efforts.Now, maybe that's really the point. That we CAN'T love God with our entire being because of our sin, which effects how we relate to others, and that the real answer the lawyer sought was standing right in front of him ready to pay the price for him."
When you prattle on and on about how we can't love perfectly, and the rest of your drivel, it makes me wonder of you ever really read anything I say.
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Post a Comment