Let The Text Speak — An Appreciation of "The Bible as Literature" Podcast
NOTE: This was originally written on Medium in accordance with the release of its 500th episode on September 24, 2023. While it was originally released in several parts, I am opting to share the entire piece in full. It is quite long, but I had a lot to say. This podcast changed my life, and Fr. Marc continues to be a crucial element in my engagement with scripture to this very day. I have made only minor edits in this re-release.
Prologue
On September 24, 2023 The Bible as Literature podcast released their 500th episode. The milestone is impressive, but this itself isn’t the purpose of this present writing. Rather I would like to share what a tremendous impact this podcast has had on myself and my hearing of scripture, and perhaps I can regurgitate some important lessons for the future study of this epic literature.
Firstly, I am not exaggerating at all when I say that The Bible as Literature completely opened the text of scripture for me. As one untimely born in a culture two thousand years removed from the initial authorship, and relying on translations, there was always a part of the Bible that seemed incomprehensible to me. I think many people feel that way about the Bible. As Fr. Marc Boulos, one of the hosts of the podcast, says in the 500th episode intro:
The Bible, too, is old. But it is more than that. It stands out from the crowd in how it has disagreed with all of us, our ideas, and the things we fashion from days of old.
Part of what makes the Bible seemingly incomprehensible to us is the simple fact that what it says is unacceptable to our ears. We want God’s word to be agreeable to us, rather than submitting to whatever is written despite the content therein. Like the opponents of Paul’s gospel, most of us hear scripture with a veil over our eyes in order to deliberately keep the gospel of Christ hidden and out of sight.
Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil (kalymma) over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled (anakekalymmenō) face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. — 2 Cor. 3:12–18
The Greek word for veil is kalymma which is ultimately derived from the verb kaluptó, meaning to hide. The power in this resides in the fact that the New Testament is emphatic that rather than being something hidden and out of sight, the gospel is out in the open and revealed boldly out of what was previously hidden. The Greek word for this in the New Testament is apokalupsis which occurs no less than 18 times in the text. It is also the Greek name for the perpetually misunderstood and abused finale of the scriptural epic, Revelation, which at its onset is presented as the Apokalupsis Iēsou Christou, the uncovering of Jesus Christ.
While the scriptural teaching is uncovered and out in the open, the veil still remains precisely because of our unwillingness to actually listen to it.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.” — Matt. 13:13–15; Isa. 6:9–12
Having this veil removed is the grace of God, but it takes participation and effort on our part. To put it another way, we have to endure the teaching on its own terms and fight against worldly distractions lest we prove to be unfruitful in its cultivation within us.
Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty. — Matt. 13:18–23
Having this veil removed also means that we take seriously the Biblical teaching that scripture is written in the sense of the Greek perfect tense. In layman’s terms, when Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, or any other character in the Bible says the words kathōs gegraptai the meaning is that scripture was written before you in the past and is absolutely complete. Not only is it complete, but its words still apply to the present day. If this is not understood properly, scripture can do nothing for you because the human impulse is always to add to it. It emphatically cannot be added to, as declared by Jesus in the closing remarks of the book of Revelation.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. — Rev. 22:18–19
If we are truly willing to accept this teaching, it makes scripture the only reference that truly matters. Everything else is just noise. While people delight in supposedly new things the truth is, according to scripture, nothing, absolutely nothing is new. In explaining this phenomenon, Fr. Marc in this same episode intro, explains this teaching better than I can.
The biblical text is epic, expansive, and integrated in specific and articulate ways. After 500 episodes (over 800, if you add in Tarazi Tuesdays), I am convinced that the biblical genre’s complexity is far beyond the reach of contemporary literature and artistic expression. This is not intended as hyperbole. People get excited about modern literature because we always seek “new” ideas. But there are no new ideas. Just old ideas repackaged and half-baked. The well-written old ideas repackaged in some of the new books are useful, but they are still limited with respect to what matters most because, in the end, they all share the same premise as the tired opinions the average person posts online. So you read, hunt for useful knowledge, and test it against your reference, but you are selective with respect to where you place your trust.
As someone who has been an artist from the time I can remember, to be told that I will never have an original idea or story or anything that I create, carries a special kind of sting. I admit, it hit me like a ton of bricks while listening to the episode. I found myself tearing up. Not because I felt insulted, but because at this axial moment in the podcast’s history, I suddenly realized scripture had been made clearer to me in that moment than it has ever been before. The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that God has given us his wisdom once and for all. That’s it. There’s nothing more to discover. We can create our own stories and continue crafting our own art, but this is only to communicate with our fellow humans on deeper emotional levels. It is not to say anything new or original because that is impossible. This runs against the human psyche. What we are given is never enough. People are seldom interested in what scripture actually says and are too busy speculating on matters for which it is absolutely silent. What was God up to before Genesis 1? Why did God even bother to create the world if it was going to be corrupted anyways? Will my pets be in heaven with me? An even worse phenomenon is the whole discipline of natural theology. Here, the objective is to somehow “discover” the scriptural God outside of scripture. The entire premise of natural theology is dynamited by Paul’s evangelization to the Athenians in Acts 17.
For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. — Acts 17:23
What does Paul mean by God being unknown by the Greeks? He means that they didn’t have scripture, which was what he was preparing to proclaim to them. If Greek philosophy can only carry you to the unknown, what benefit does it have for those of us who possess scripture? Absolutely nothing. These are among the idols we must smash, lest we be carried away from the Biblical teaching and into idolatry. The moment one attempts to separate God from scripture, their god ceases to be the scriptural God for the simple reason that their god becomes subservient to their own philosophizing. They are no longer submitting to God as revealed to them, but are concocting their own god via their own cognitive faculties. Paul defends his gospel in Galatians 1:16 by emphatically declaring that the gospel was not delivered to him by anyone other than God the Father himself, when he was pleased eudokēsen to reveal apokalypsai his son to him. Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is written of in virtually an identical manner.
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed (apekalypsen) this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. — Matt. 16:16–17
In both cases it is clear that Peter and Paul’s understanding of the gospel teaching is not due the exercise of their own cognitive abilities, or any investigation outside of scripture, but simply God the Father uncovering this to them. The moment Peter interjects his own understanding instead of submitting to what was revealed to him, Jesus sharply rebukes him and calls him Satan and a hindrance, or more accurately, a stumbling block (skandalon).
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance (skandalon) to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” — Matt. 16:21–23
On the topic of smashing the idols created by our own cognitive function, we must also address the anti-scriptural idolization of our forefathers. This is a behavior common to all of us, but if we want to truly hear what scripture is saying, this is yet another idol we must eschew. In my own tradition, that being Eastern Orthodoxy, it is all too common for people, especially converts, to boast in our historical connection with the apostles. Many of us, myself included, joined the Orthodox Church in part because of this historical connection. This is the same draw that alternatively attracts people to the Roman Catholic Church. As attractive as this draw is, it is anti scriptural. The reason being that in scripture, one’s ancestors are never to be seen as role models but rather as past examples of iniquity and disobedience to be used as an example mashal. The illusion that your ancestors were righteous and holy and worthy of veneration merely because they were Israelites, or Christians in your tradition, is mercilessly shot down in the Bible.
Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth! I will open my mouth in a parable mashal; I will utter dark sayings from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God. — Psa. 78:1–8
To assume that Christians are held to a different standard is immediately invalidated by Paul’s complete disregard for the station held by the pillars of the first century Jewish Christian community, James, Peter, and John.
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation (apokalypsin) and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in — who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery — to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” — Gal. 2:1–14
While this example is sufficient to make the point, it is important to note that this isn’t an isolated incident in scripture. In 1 Corinthians, Paul admonishes the Corinthians for splitting on the basis of their allegiance to different teachers who they are making the reference, instead of the apokalypsis revealed to them by God the Father.
For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. — 1 Cor. 1:11–15
Understanding this concept renders the unending online debates between Catholic and Orthodox zealots as to who truly preserves and honors the apostolic and patristic faith totally hollow and absurd. For Paul, whether Peter was the first Pope is itself irrelevant. If Peter is not walking in step with the gospel teaching, as Paul found him in Galatians 2, he falls under Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:8–9. Peter’s ultimate redemption is found, not in his appeal to his Petrine authority granted to him by Christ in Matthew 16, but in his obedience to the gospel that was revealed to him and Paul by God the Father.
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. — 2 Pet. 3:15–16
To most, even this first part of the essay will seem upsetting and for some, even crushing. This is the painful part of scripture. In a world where everyone wants to be validated, scripture invalidates everything about you. It is very uncomfortable and the immediate reaction is to fight against it. But if you really want to hear scripture on its own terms, you have to submit to God’s instruction as it is found. This is only possible by adapting to and adopting the scriptural Semitic. What do I mean by this? I mean, understanding what Hebrew words mean, not in their abstract dictionary definitions, but in their function in scripture. At the start of my journey, I thought the prospect of learning the Biblical languages would be far out of my reach. Scripture is trilingual (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and I was approaching this as someone who could barely manage a simple conversational exchange in Spanish. I say mashallah for the five decade long scholarly corpus of Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi who ignited my journey in learning the Biblical languages, not by teaching me dictionary definitions which I would soon forget but by showing me the function of these words in the text which I could never forget because everytime I engage with the Bible I encounter them all over again! For the remainder of this essay, I would like to lay out some of the key things I have learned for the past two years in a series of tracts. The first will be expressly about the importance of not only Biblical Hebrew, but the Semitic Languages themselves in understanding the Biblical narrative via the function of the words that drive it forward.
Tract 1: The Original Semitic
For the importance of understanding the original language the Bible was composed in, I appeal to the striking prologue of the deuterocanonical book of Sirach, accepted as scripture by both the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and considered at least as historically important by Protestants.
You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. — Sir. Pro:15-26
Any student of Tarazi is already very familiar with this passage because of how much he has brought it up over the years, but it deserves to be continuously used in these discussions because of how striking it is. That at least some Christians of the past took Hebrew seriously is evidenced by Origen and Jerome undertaking this extremely difficult task. For Jerome specifically, in the effort of translating the Bible into Latin, he could have merely translated the Greek of the Septuagint but specifically spent time with rabbis to learn the consonantal Hebrew in order to make sure that this critically important project at least attempted to reflect the original sense of the text. What is also critical here, is the notion in Sirach’s prologue that the Greek text being encountered is potentially an imperfect rendering. This is true, not only of the book of Sirach but also applicable to the Greek translations of the law, the prophets, and the other writings. In other words, the Septuagint is not and cannot be its own reference. The goal of the Septuagint is not to be a perfect translation, but to be a beacon pointing the Greek hearer to the original Semitic Hebrew Bible. It is an invitation to the original text, not a substitute which is typically how translations behave. Works in other languages are translated so that the recipients don’t have a barrier between them and the original work. But no matter how faithful a translation is, that barrier will always be there by virtue of the fact that the words the hearer is encountering are not the words employed by the original author, but rather are somebody else’s interpretation of those words. To drive this point even more forcefully, I would imagine that most people would not consider a modern colloquial abridgement of Shakespeare’s body of work to be the actual Shakespearean literature. Reading such a version of Julius Caesar is not the same as reading it in the original manner in which Shakespeare composed it. The famous line beware the ides of march is not the same as look out for March 15th even though that is essentially the meaning, the latter is not Shakespeare’s intention. Shakespearean English is a style in and of itself. It is not merely the language employed by William Shakespeare, but a stylistic attribute. It is so closely tied to the literature that to divorce it from that is to do damage to it. So, modern abridged versions function to help a modern audience understand Shakespeare’s original intent with the language and is not intended to be a replacement nor the main reference. No matter how incomprehensible Shakespearean English will be to successive generations of English speakers, the Globe Theatre will never present these plays in any language other than Shakespeare’s 16th century dialect. Whether the audience understands the dialogue is immaterial. There exists resources designed to help them out but the original remains firm and unmoved by time.
The original text of scripture needs to be treated with the same respect. Throughout his prolific career, Fr. Paul Tarazi has testified to scripture’s virtual incomprehensibility without the original Hebrew. His magnum opus, The Rise of Scripture, focuses the bulk of its pages on interconnected Hebrew words via their triliteral roots, and also important grammatical features of the language which are inexpressible in translations. I will do my best to represent the ones that are the most striking to me, but anyone serious about learning more should read Tarazi’s latest books for themselves to get the full scope of what I am talking about.
In Semitic languages, the triliteral root is everything. This is because Semitic languages are natively written without vocalic sounds. Everything expressed on the page is written in consonants, which can be challenging to read, but the connection between words is readily apparent. One example has to do with unwritten vocalic sounds having to do with identifying nouns and verbs. A famous Hebrew noun is the word DBR which is typically translated as a word, matter, or thing. When it is presented as a verb, it is written exactly the same way. The only difference is in pronunciation. A similar mechanism can be found in Greek, for the simple fact that both the Greek and Hebrew alphabets derive from the Phoenician alphabet, which was also a Semitic language without vowels. The vowels were added by the Greeks for ease in pronunciation, although the Semites have done just fine without them up to the present day. The corresponding word to DBR in Greek is logos. The verbal form is legō, meaning to speak. Logos then refers to a spoken thing. Like Hebrew, the only thing that has changed with the basic stem of the word is the vowel.
The triliteral root is also frequently matched with prepositions in order to create new functions for these roots. In almost every case, these connections are completely inexpressible in any other language. For example, a notable case is in the word MDBR which is created by attaching the mem preposition with the DBR root. The mem preposition often has to do with physical location, so the connotation of MDBR would literally be a place where the DBR is employed. Compare this with the root KTB which refers to writing. The verbal form means simply to write whereas the noun form is simply a written thing, hence the third section of the Old Testament’s delineation as the Ketubim (the writings). MKTB then refers to an office, a place where writing happens and where written things are found. Interestingly though, MDBR is employed in the scriptural narrative to describe the desert. How strange. What is it about a desert that would warrant a word like this? What is its function? The answer has less to do with the nature of the desert itself, but what is found within the desert. From the perspective of the authors who had the Syro-Arabian desert in their immediate purview, this can only refer to the activity of bedouin shepherds who keep their flocks together by the calling out, QRA, of their voice. Unsurprisingly, this image of shepherdism is immediately consistent with the content of the scriptural narrative, where God is routinely described as a shepherd who is leading his flock, Israel. The saga of Israel in the desert must necessarily be seen as a bedouin (God) leading his sheep by the call of his voice. It is precisely within the MDBR where God’s DBR is codified within the TWRH, instruction, which becomes the bread of life for the sheep who live, not on physical bread, MN, but by every DBR which proceeds from the mouth of God. The teaching becomes their sustenance, a teaching that is necessary for them to live. This is forceful with the backdrop of the Syro-Arabian desert firmly in mind, because such extreme environmental conditions are essentially fatal for individual sheep. In order to find the well watered oasis, GN B ‘EDN, the flock relies on its shepherd completely. It takes total unabashed trust, AMN, that the shepherd will lead the flock to safety. The sheep themselves have no choice nor any alternative. It is either put full trust in the shepherd and follow his call, or do your own thing and succumb to the elements. It seems bleak but those are the conditions laid out by scripture. We are on a swift path to destruction and our only salvation is in following the voice of the shepherd in complete faith and obedience to his call. Arabic, a sister language to Hebrew, retained this basic function of DBR by employing this same root in the act of project management. In no way, shape, or form can any of this be expressed by an English translation. It can be described tangentially in English, but there is no word in our language which links a command with the desert itself. The fact that the Bible does is critical to its message, and testifies to the importance for teachers of the Bible to be aware of it. Without it, the results are nearly always disastrous.
I would like to offer a few more interesting Semitic roots and their functions. In Semitic languages, the root RḤM refers to the womb on the one hand and mercy on the other. Actually, in Hebrew, if the noun is singular, it almost always refers to the womb and when it is plural, it refers to mercy. How can this be? Again, to understand this, I will compare it with another example which will be more immediately comprehensible. In Hebrew the root DM refers to blood and in the plural form, refers to bloodshed. In other words, it is the movement of the blood. Similarly, mercy is seen as being the movement of the womb. In these Semitic languages, mercy is not an abstract concept but specifically tied to what a pregnant woman goes through, physically and emotionally, in her becoming a mother. To put it another way, in Semitic cultures, the only person who truly understands the meaning of mercy is a woman who has carried a child and given birth. So any discussion or Bible study on mercy in the Bible must be stemmed from this understanding of the words, or the entire study is in vain because the participants are speaking in terms of their own experience, not the content of scripture.
I will offer but one more example in this section of the paper. At the 2023 OCABS Symposium while presenting excerpts from his upcoming collection of homilies, Fr. Marc Boulos shared a story where he was preaching on Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation by the Devil in chapter 4. In the part where the Devil sets Jesus on the pinnacle pterygion, he quotes Psalm 91 which employs the word KNF, which literally refers to a wing, but also has the connotation of covering. In the Greek Septuagint, pterygion is used to translate KNF in Psalm 91:4. While Fr. Marc was explaining this wordplay to his parish, an Arab woman who attends his church spoke up and explained how the root is used in colloquial Arabic in terms of keeping a family safe. It is a protective covering. It is clear then, when using the Semitic as a base for understanding and not the Greek alone, that the Devil used Psalm 91 to try and trick Jesus into betraying his Father by considering himself to be the protective covering of his flock in the wilderness, and not his Father. As Fr. Marc explained at the symposium, this woman in his congregation understood what was going on functionally in this Biblical story better than your typical Ivy League theological student. This is despite this parishioner not being a scholar herself, and certainly not erudite in an academic sense. But she speaks Arabic, and that naturally gives her the edge in understanding a text that is Semitic to its core.
Tract 2: An Absent but “Audible” God
Since at least the late 1990s, Fr. Paul Tarazi has argued and demonstrated that the prophetic book of Ezekiel contains within its pages the basic blueprint of the Old Testament’s message. The Biblical God is clearly defined and the essentially countercultural anti-history of the deity and its city is demonstrated as the main narrative thread of its story. This becomes readily apparent in how Ezekiel runs against the grain of the typical trends usual to Ancient Near Eastern literature. The cultural norm at this time was to present the deity as the founder of its city and the patron of the king, who also functioned as the priest. The palace-temple complex was then the abode of the deity and the priest king was the sole mediator between that god and the laity. In the literature about the god and its monarchs, the god would be the main defender of the city and would lead its people into glory and triumph. The territory of the god in question though, would be relegated to that particular city-state. To be outside of the city, would be to be outside of the deity’s domain. The god would also be present, not only in the person of the priest king, but also in the form of an iconic statue. This was not merely a representation. The ancient peoples of the Near East would literally have rituals where they invited the spirit of the deity to reside inside of the statue. The statue, therefore, was the god. This idea of a transcendent reality was totally absent here.
This is where Ezekiel is striking. Contrary to this formula, Ezekiel firstly presents a deity who is addressing his exiled people who are residing in a land that is not Yahweh’s territory, but of the Babylonian gods Bel and Nebo. And Ezekiel makes it clear very early on that this deity has not protected his people nor their city but has helped destroy his own city and people on account of their lack of charity (Ezek. 16). Even more striking is that this deity is first presented not as the Jerusalemite god Yahweh but as Elohim which carries with it a power unable to be expressed in translation. Elohim is the plural of the singular Eloah which itself is related to the Canaanite patron deity El. El was, of course, the father of the gods. In the Canaanite pantheon, the word elohim referred not to a single deity, but to the entire pantheon. The elohim were the collective offspring of El. So what is going on with the word Elohim in the Bible? Simply put, it is a Semitic feature which uses the plural to communicate a superlative function. A similar occurrence is present with the superlative land animal described in Job 40:15–24. This creature is called behemot which is the feminine plural form of the word behemah which simply refers to a land mammal. So it’s not using the plural form to communicate a multiplicity here, but as a way of communicating that this animal is the ultimate animal in terms of size and splendor. It’s used as a rhetorical device to describe the limitless potential of God’s providence. So Elohim as it relates to Ezekiel’s deity is not to be understood as describing a multiplicity, but a superlative. This isn’t just El, a god in the pantheon, this is THE GOD who alone has all of the power and dominion of the elohim in the old Canaanite religion. The interplay between the understanding of Elohim as the ultimate deity in conjunction with the elohim as the gods of Canaan is expressed powerfully in Psalm 82.
God Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods elohim he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah; Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods elohim, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God Elohim, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations! — Ps. 82:1–8
Another striking feature is that Elohim is presented by Ezekiel as not only being independent of his temple, but absolutely unable to be depicted in statuary. In brilliant literary anti-imagery, Ezekiel describes an impossible sight. His deity is on a chariot where the wheels are spinning in every direction at once while somehow, not moving at all!
As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. — Ezek. 1:16–17
Not only is Ezekiel presenting this deity as without a statue and a temple at the moment, he is making it clear that this deity cannot be depicted. How could one depict this impossible sight in any medium other than the written literature? You can’t even imagine it! What is also striking is that instead of being bound by his temple and statue, he is moving as a spirit ruah which is to say, a wind. In other words, he is totally unpredictable and unable to be pinned down by anyone. When Ezekiel “sees” the glory kabod or literally, weightiness of the deity, he does not really see anything but hears his voice.
Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking. — Ezek. 1:28b
Thus, as will be made clear, Ezekiel’s God is not to be seen but to be heard. To be heard, there needs to be a writ, katub, and as such he presents Ezekiel with a scroll already written! Ezekiel’s commission, then, is to eat the scroll presented to him by God and deliver its warning to not only Israel, but the surrounding nations as well. Elohim, in his superlative function, is not merely the deity of his city state, as Yahweh is, but as the universal deity of the entire earth. These points also invalidate the role of the priest king in the Ancient Near East who alone was considered the conduit for the god’s intercession for the people. The scroll now takes over that function, and is in fact, over the king as THE authority. This is expressed clearly in the book of Deuteronomy, which expresses this Ezekelian attitude towards the Palace-Temple complex.
And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. — Deut. 17:18–20
Thus there is in this literature an inherent anti king and anti temple stance which is extremely striking to say the least. This harsh admonition of kingship and priesthood is present all throughout the book of Ezekiel and runs as its main narrative thread. This is clear from God’s solution to the dilemma which involves not appointing a king or priest to lead his people, but himself as shepherd along with an appointed human prince (not a king) who will also function as a shepherd of his flock. Where his people have whored themselves to their own beloved dod gods and monarchs, God will appoint his own beloved dawid. Both words are from the Hebrew triliteral DWD which is where we get the name David. The Ezekelian David then, is God’s answer to Israel’s and Judah’s harlotry.
Another important note about Ezekiel’s narrative thread, is its presentation of Israel and Judah as an instructive mashal. This word is multifaceted, but it is presented in Ezekiel as a parable that is using Israel and Judah as examples of iniquity in the past. It functions identically to Psalm 78 quoted earlier in the Bible. In the parable of Ezekiel 16, Jerusalem is the main subject who is presented as God’s unfaithful bride who has not only followed in the harlotry of her two sisters, Samaria and Sodom, but has even shockingly surpassed their wickedness.
Bear your disgrace, you also, for you have intervened on behalf of your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you. So be ashamed, you also, and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous. — Ezek. 16:52
Furthermore, besides following other gods and seeking the aid of Egypt and Babylon, the main sin is presented as an unwillingness to show charity to the needy neighbor.
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. — Ezek. 16: 49
This thread is picked up again in chapter 23 where Samaria and Jerusalem are two sisters named Oholah, and Oholibah respectively. The basic premise is the same. Despite belonging to God, they lusted after other nations and gods and gained reputations as whores. The text is extremely graphic in its depiction of their sexual iniquity, but the message is clear. This mashal, or example, becomes the literary thread of the entire biblical narrative. To put it another way, the biblical story is simply an expansion of Ezekiel 16 and 23. In the middle of these two parables, the Ezekelian God lays out the correct behavior he is looking for, which sums up the entire letter of the Torahic law.
If a man is righteous and does what is just and right — if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully — he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God. — Ezek. 18:5–9
That Ezekiel supplies the basic blueprint for the Torah, and that this is the main positive message of Ezekiel, the Pauline teaching in Galatians now has its necessary context already laid out in the Old Testament.
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” — Gal. 5:14
The frankly bizarre preoccupation with orthodoxy that modern Christians espouse is simply foreign to scripture, both in the new and old testament. While faith in God is critical, that faith simply means to not only believe what God has said is indeed true but to actually change your behavior according to the teaching. Inspired by the Greco-Roman world of its day, early Christianity was corrupted by the influence of Hellenism which placed its importance on world views and debates about ontology. Thus, by the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the Roman Empire, the underbelly of Christian thought and apologetics became increasingly more rhetorically driven and philosophical. Thus, by the time the Nicene creed was adopted, the Greek word pistevo came to mean “I believe” in the sense of this is my worldview rather than in the sense of the Hebrew word “aman” which is a pledge of allegiance to God’s teaching. To say “amen” is akin to signing a contract. By it, you agree to do the will of the God who speaks through the scriptures and are bound to the punishment administered if you fail to follow through. This can be clearly seen in the gospel of Matthew.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. — Matt. 7:21
Greco-Roman Christianity followed another path, unfortunately, and split into innumerable factions and schismatic groups. This actually caused enough political trauma to the Byzantine Empire, that when it was weakened by the war against the Persian Sassanids, it was difficult for them to muster support amongst the Christians of the Syro-Arabian desert due to persecution they suffered under the Byzantines. The main “heretical” Christian groups in this area were the “west Syrian” Syriac Orthodox Church which held to a miaphysite Christology and rejected the Christological formula accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 on the one hand, and the “east Syrian” Assyrian Church of the East which held to Nestorius’ dyophysitism and rejected the earlier council of Ephesus in 431 on the other hand. When the united Arab tribes under the Rashidun Caliphs conquered Western Arabia and Syria, many Syriac Christians considered them to be liberators rather than oppressors. In a 7th century letter written by the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, Ishoyahbb III wrote:
For these Arabs to whom at this time God has given control over the world, as you know, they are also here with us. Not only are they no enemy to Christianity, but they are even praisers of our faith, honorers of our Lord’s priests, and holy ones, and supporters of churches and monasteries. — Letter to Simeon, Bishop of Rev Ardashir
That the Qur’an is not only aware of, but is in fact responding to this dire situation of the Christian faith, is clear when it warns the Muslims not to break into various sects as the Christians have done.
Those who have divided their doctrine and become sects: thou art not of them in anything; their affair is but with God; then will He inform them of what they did. — Q. 6:159
Another warning against sectarianism is delivered in chapter 30, which is dealing specifically with the Byzantine war against the Persians.
And be in prudent fear of Him, and uphold the duty; and be not of the idolaters: Of those who divide their doctrine and become sects, each party exulting at what it has. — Q. 30:31–32
The Syrian Christian response to meeting the revelation carried by the Arabs is also powerfully illustrated in the fifth chapter of the Qur’an.
You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant. When they listen to what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears for recognizing the truth. They say, “Our Lord! We believe, so count us among the witnesses. — Q. 5:82–83
To these Syrian Christians, the arrival of the Quranic message was merely a reversion back to the fundamentals of the faith demonstrated by Abraham’s total trust, obedience, and submission islam to the Ezekelian God. It was a liberation from the destructive effects of Hellenism, which had decimated Christian unity over semantic disagreements. As demonstrated by Patriarch Ishoyahbb III, their understanding of the Qur’an is that it has been delivered to them to their shame. That is, the only reason why the Qur’an exists is because the Jews and the Christians went astray from their original calling and broke into sects, violently zealous for their own sectarianism. The underbelly of the Qur’an’s basic message is essentially that of Paul’s in the New Testament, that those who submit to God in the manner of Abraham are his true heirs.
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. — Gal. 3:7
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the polytheists. — Q. 3:67
That the Qur’an also demonstrates a return to Ezekiel’s aniconic God in the form of the scroll delivered to the prophet, is evidenced by its presentation of itself as simply the recitation of God’s words.
In Arabic, qur’an literally means “what is read aloud” and comes from the triliteral root QRA common to Hebrew, Syro-Aramaic, and Arabic. This would have been especially powerful to the ears of Syriac Christians, because the Syro-Aramaic word for their lectionary is qeryana from the same root! As in Ezekiel, God is present in the words of the text itself and not within a statue or a temple. Therefore, God cannot be depicted iconically in this presentation because the object is to hear him. To see him is bad news, because if you see God, it is essentially a death sentence.
You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live. — Ex. 33:20
And as the Qur’an presents itself as a return to the fundamentals, the mercy to the needy neighbor is right at the forefront of its message. In fact, the inhabitants of hell are presented as those who failed to show this mercy.
“What has landed you in Hell?” They will reply, “We were not of those who prayed, nor did we feed the poor. We used to indulge in falsehood along with others, and deny the Day of Judgment, until the inevitable came to us.” — Q. 74:43–47
This point then is not to argue for the superiority of the religion we call Islam today, expressed in the Sunni and Shia sects, over what we call Christianity and Judaism today, but to show that the Qur’an represents an indictment and admonition against those who call themselves Christians and Jews. If we claim the religion of Abraham, then we are expected to follow it. The answer then isn’t to join a new religion, but to harken back to the scriptures that were delivered beforehand to us.
Tract 3: The Basic Message of Scripture
One of the most notable controversies in Christian history has to do with soteriology and the mechanics of salvation. Most, if not all of these, miss the mark for the simple reason that they are highly individualized. Many Christian sects and denominations focus on the personal journey of the individual sinner, whereas the Bible is concerned with the wellbeing of the flock in its multitude. Even the famous parable of the lost sheep is framed in the gospel of Matthew, not as directed towards his immediate audience, but towards the little ones — ie those who are among the needy, not necessarily children alone per se but they are certainly included.
See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. — Matt. 18:10–14
In the gospel of Luke, the parable of the lost sheep is delivered in conjunction with a series of rebukes against the Pharisees’ inability to understand why Jesus is ministering to the sinners and tax collectors.
Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” So he told them this parable: “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. — Luke 15:1–7
So even the text that is most often connected with an individualization of the gospel has more to do with the hearers’ neighbors, rather than the hearers themselves. In other words, the text is seeking not to inspire the hearer and boast of their importance in God’s eyes, but to smash their egos and proclaim to them that even the people they find the most despicable and insignificant are so important to God that he will search tirelessly for them to the ends of the earth. This diminishment of the hearer his personified in Jesus’ apostle par excellence, Paul. Unlike many characters in the New Testament, Paul’s name is neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Latin. The original, Paulus, means the little one and its usage is powerfully juxtaposed with the name Saul, which harkens back to the first king of Israel. It isn’t only the loftiness of regality that is juxtaposed here, but the fact that Saul was described as being tall in stature in 1 Samuel 9:2. In this sense, he can perhaps be identified as becoming one of the little ones who are the lost sheep in Matthew’s telling of the parable. That the little ones are also representative of the gentiles is powerfully reinforced when, in the book of Acts, Saul’s name change to Paul in the narrative occurs after evangelizing the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus.
He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” — Acts 13:7–11
In the act of evangelizing the proconsul, Paul becomes as Sergius Paulus is. Instead of Judaizing him as his opponents would do, he appeals to his Roman citizenship and his Roman name and presents himself as a fellow gentile.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. — 1 Cor. 9:20–21
This is reinforced by the inverse of his circumcising Timothy, because of the Jews later in the book of Acts.
Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. — Acts 16:3
This is to demonstrate that neither the Jew nor the Greek have the upper hand in this new covenant, but that both are called to common table fellowship. This is to fulfill Isaiah 66 where God’s new covenant community is made up of peoples from among all of the nations.
For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. — Isa. 66:18–21
This new condition, or covenant, is available for full membership regardless of circumcision and other Jewish customs because this new law is written on the heart and thus the circumcision employed is on one’s heart as well. In Semitic cultures, the heart is the seat of intellect, so the act of having one’s heart circumcised is to do a holistic 180 turnaround. Paul did not invent this concept, but merely read and understood the scriptures correctly against his opponents who abused the covenant of circumcision and turned it into something they could boast outwardly in superiority against the gentiles. That the circumcision of one’s heart is the underlying goal of physical circumcision is clear in the Old Testament scriptures.
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. — Deut. 10:16–17
And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. — Deut. 30:6
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts. — Jer. 4:4
The play on the circumcision of the heart is reinforced in Jeremiah’s exposition of the New Covenant.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. — Jer. 31:33
In the epistle to the Romans, Paul demonstrates this by putting the two pieces together.
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. — Rom. 2:28–29
This principle, again, is not something that Paul made up out of the clear blue sky, but is deeply entrenched in the overall Biblical teaching. The crux of it is this: God, unlike human beings, is not concerned with the outward appearance. White wash on dung does not fool him, as it would a person. God sees the heart and judges it accordingly.
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” — 1 Sam. 16:7
Fr. Marc Boulos captures this powerfully in his introduction to the book Torah to the Gentiles: St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
The Pharisees presume the possibility of a pure or “good” person because they believe themselves — on the basis of appearance — better than those whose sins are outwardly visible. A well-dressed, tactful, middle class office worker who is privately arrogant is much harder to single out than a prostitute or a homeless drug addict. The latter is associated with uncleanness; the former with the eternal bliss of Middle America. In the Sermon the Mount, Jesus is explicit: a godly man who obeys in secret is outwardly indistinguishable from the godless. True purity, Jesus teaches, is not visible. The human being who sees purity is blind, because human eyes fool us into thinking that we can differentiate between pure and impure. — pp. 28–29
To add on to this point, it is also striking that even in the garden, it was Eve’s determination that the fruit was pleasing to the eye that compelled her to eat from it. This is precisely why the Bible warns us not to judge based on appearances, but to judge based on the outcome of behavior which is precisely understood as fruit. But even then, it is God who ultimately judges whether the fruit is substantially good.
The problem with judging is another feature of the New Testament which is precisely employed to quell any potential arrogance that may arise from Paul’s addressees. In Romans, the Jews are in trouble on judgment day because of their hypocrisy in following the law, but the gentiles are also in trouble on the basis of their own sense of morality and the judgment they levy against others as a result.
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things […] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. — Rom. 1:2, 14–16
Here Paul is teaching that when the gentiles judge, they are judging according to common sense, which is ultimately what the law is. Even though they do not possess the scriptures themselves, they are still culpable on judgment day, not according to the law written on the stone tablets on Mount Horeb, but on the law that is written in their hearts. This is why every man, both Jew and gentile, are without excuse in Paul’s gospel. The only way out of this impasse, then, is God’s grace.
This is where the debates about soteriology go completely off the rails. It is not a question about faith versus works. Salvation is not something that someone can achieve by bribing God with it, even belief in him is not going to help on its own. No, salvation comes not by faith nor works but by grace. This is only possible because God chooses to forgive. Faith then is the response to that grace by acting faithfully to that grace. In other words, the teaching is to bestow the same forgiveness to others that God showed you. This, and only this, is what each person will be judged on at the judgment seat of Christ.
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. — Matt. 25: 41–46
This is also reinforced in the parable of the unforgiving servant.
Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” — Matt. 18:32–35
Jesus’ death on the cross then is not to be understood in terms of complicated theological treatises, but as a beautiful testimony of God’s mercy. As is explained in the parable of the tenants of the vineyard, God sent prophets to warn humanity throughout time. Every one of these prophets was rejected, oftentimes violently so. In a final act of warning, God sent an heir who he was well pleased with (Mk. 1:11) and who perfectly walked in his statutes, presuming that his tenants, Israel, would finally obey him. Instead, the tenants killed the Son.
While the parable ends with a sobering warning of judgment, God actually uses the death of Jesus as an instrument for salvation. Instead of showing wrath, he shows mercy by rendering Jesus’ death as a sacrifice initiating Jeremiah’s New Covenant. Not only that, but he raises Jesus from the dead, not only to life but to power. The force of this is demonstrated precisely by the manner of Jesus’ death, which was to be hanged in public shame, a mark of being cursed in the Old Testament.
His body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. — Deut. 21:23
In God raising his cursed Son from the dead, he is publicly proclaiming that the curse attached to his Son is now undone.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” — so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. — Gal. 3:13–14
In explaining this further in Romans, Paul explains that Jesus’ death as the initiation of the New Covenant signals a fulfillment of the conditions set in the Old Covenant.
Or do you not know, brothers — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. — Rom. 7:1–6
The Christian rite of baptism is a visceral demonstration of our death with Christ, and our being raised with him.
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. — Rom. 6:3–5
Therefore, the one who is in Christ is free from the bondage of sin and death. There is no hope in the vain rituals, repetitions, and outward piety of the Pharisees. Jesus’ death and resurrection testifies to the hope in having a circumcised heart in order to bear fruits worthy of repentance. Our heart of stone is to be transformed into a heart of flesh, and our inclination to serve ourselves is to be changed to the concern of our needy neighbor. The gospel necessitates that we change, but that change can only happen when we submit to God’s instruction. Our freedom in Christ is to be free from the bondage of the idea that we can appease God by our religiosity and outward piety. But our freedom in Christ is not total freedom as in our Americanized understanding of that word. We were bought with a price. We are slaves to Christ instead of slaves to death. Therefore, we must do what Christ commands lest we prove unworthy on the day of judgment and find ourselves among the goats instead of the sheep.
The New Testament doubles down in its insistence, already firmly established in the Old Testament, that the scriptural deity is calling us to walk faithfully in his laws and statutes, and not in temple sacrifices. As the epistle to the Hebrews explains, Jesus Christ has become every function of the temple, being both the priest and the sacrifice.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. — Heb. 9:11–12
While this sacrifice is once-for-all, complacency is still not an option. Paul makes it very clear that the moment we fall back into sin is the moment that sacrifice becomes null for us.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. — Heb. 10:26–27
In lieu of man made traditions and outward religiosity, Jesus is presented as the solution to the contemporaneous political issues of Roman Judea. The Jews were famously splintered into several sects, with the two prominent parties being the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Pharisees in particular were expecting a military leader, in the vein of King David, who would free them from the oppression of the Romans. Instead of one of these false messiahs who came and went with the times, Paul wrote of a crucified political dissident who did not model the David of 2 Samuel but modeled the David of 1 Samuel, who was a shepherd first and foremost. Instead of reflecting David’s impressive military conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 5, Jesus reflects the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Paul presents a Christ who did not condemn his enemies, but forgave them, even after nailing him on a cross. In other words, he conquered his enemy by inviting them to open table fellowship under the aegis of his Father in heaven. Incredibly, by the fourth century, Christianity had conquered the Roman Empire, not by the blood of soldiers but by the blood of martyrs. There is a story about Constantine entering the church at Nicea for the famous ecumenical council, and becoming acquainted with those who had survived violent persecution. Some of these individuals were missing limbs, or eyes, or were otherwise disfigured. Without hesitation, Constantine did the unthinkable. He bowed down to them and received their blessing. The Emperor. Such a thing would have been unthinkable before. But in that moment, even Constantine knew that in the eyes of God, these Christian martyrs were greater in the kingdom of Heaven than even he.
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. — Matt. 20:26–28
Thus, in relinquishing his lofty regal name Saul, the Apostle opted for his humiliating Roman name, Paul which made himself lower, so his message of Christ could be greater than him.
Epilogue: Orthopraxy
There is a tension in Christian history between the importance of correct belief (orthodoxy) on the one hand and correct practice (orthopraxy) on the other. Any conflict between the two largely has to do with the influence of Hellenism in Christian thought, which essentially treated the faith as essentially a philosophy akin to the contemporaneous Neo-Platonism of the early centuries of the common era. The idea employed here, which is strongly present in virtually all forms of Western Christianity, is that correct belief is one of the most vital conditions for salvation, if not the sole condition. The whole discrepancy here has to do with a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word aman and by extension, its Greek counterpart pistis. Both of these words are better understood as relating to the English word trust as opposed to belief. It can also be understood as fidelity. The understanding that this has nothing to do with abstract belief can be seen even in the English language where being faithful isn’t an act of believing anything, but is about behavior as a response to trust. This can be seen when Paul speaks of God’s faithfulness.
What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? — Rom. 3:3
If it was about belief, the idea of God having faith wouldn’t make any sense. How could God believe or disbelieve something? Moreover, some translations butcher Mark 11:22 because they cannot fathom Jesus telling his disciples to have the faith of God. Many translations say faith in God or faith from God but neither one of these reflects the Greek which is simply, pistin theou. With theou being in the genitive, it is possessive and thus communicating that the faith that the apostles are to have is the same faith that God has. In other words, to have the faith of God is ultimately to behave as God behaves and to forgive others when they don’t deserve it, as God forgave us when we didn’t deserve it. This may seem like a stretch in interpretation, but read the whole passage and see what it leads up to.
As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God (lit. have the faith of God). Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” — Mk. 11:20–25
There are also countless examples from both testaments of scripture that correct behavior always trumps correct belief, but for the sake of not making this paper any longer than it needs to be, I will leave it up for those who have ears to hear to hear the teaching for themselves. We waste so much time as Christians so fixated on doctrine that we tragically miss out on the one thing scripture calls undefiled religion which is the mercy to the outsider through and through.
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. — Jas. 1:27
The beauty of that teaching is that you can see who truly lives this principle based on the fruit of their labor. There is a woman I know personally who lives the gospel teaching better than anyone I’ve ever met. To put it mildly, she has gone through more than one traumatic event during her life, and yet is the most loving and graceful person imaginable. A few years ago, she unexpectedly lost one of her children in a horrible way and not too long after that, had someone essentially try to ruin her career. He tried so hard to dig up dirt on her to ruin her reputation, and even brought her son’s death into his attacks. Luckily, she is someone who is well loved by her community so her attacker was quickly met with fierce pushback and rejection by an entire community. It got so overwhelming, that it was actually hurting his own personal life, and he eventually came around and apologized. What is striking is that not only did she accept his apology, she even invited him to dinner at her own household with her family. As a response to this unexpected gesture of mercy, he started weeping. Overcome with guilt, he said “I am so sorry, you didn’t deserve what I did to you.” Her response was badass. “You’re right. I didn’t deserve it. And I’m glad you see that now.” That is golden. She understood the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn’t mean that you just forget what happened. It doesn’t mean that you excuse what happened. It means that your response to someone else’s evil is love. It’s that simple. She didn’t let him off the hook, but she responded with love and it was so powerful to him that he broke down in tears. That is the gospel at work. Here’s the thing. I know I disagree with her about theology. I know we don’t view the Bible the same way. But none of that matters. She lives according to this gospel. I still have work to do. I look up to her and her example. She is a living saint. It will ultimately be God who will judge her fruit, but it is difficult not to see good fruit born from her tree. It’s not that she’s a good person, as there is no such thing. But her fruit is good, and you will know them by their fruit.
So, anyways, that is essentially what I’ve learned in a nutshell. I could continue ad nauseum, but I don’t want to start repeating myself. It’s really easy for the Bible to become weaponized for people’s different ideologies. We see it right now with the conflict between Israel and Palestine. What The Bible as Literature has taught me is that scripture disagrees with all of us because it runs contrary to our sense of self preservation. It always points us to our neighbor, which is very uncomfortable and runs contrary to why people tend to be religious in the first place. Many people seek religion to find meaning in their own lives or give them answers to difficult existential questions. Scripture, as I have learned, does none of these things. It offers a very bleak, but unrelentingly honest view of humanity before planting the seeds of hope into escaping this conundrum by leaving the structures that we have erected and entering into common table fellowship under the aegis of the one scriptural God, breaking bread with our former enemies and showing mercy and compassion to those we used to abuse. In turn, we are also to show love to our abusers, not to enable them, but to heap coals upon their head via our forgiveness (Rom. 12:20). Then, like the man in the story I just told, the love shown to them by their victims will render guilt upon them so great that they will hopefully be sobered enough to see their error and repent. If they do not repent, God has the last say and will judge accordingly. Belief in precepts is easy. Showing authentic love towards those we’d rather not associate with is difficult. We will be judged by the latter. This is difficult to hear, but the message is for those with ears to hear. Let us be among the obedient sheep and not like the goats who go their own way. Let us be changed by the gospel and work out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that every new day is a brand new chance to repent and change our trajectory. Above all, let us act towards one another as ones who have not only been forgiven, but who are called to forgive as our Father in heaven forgave us. If we walk down that difficult and narrow path, salvation waits for us on the other side. May all glory, honor, and dominion be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may we listen to the Holy Spirit, who bears the teaching for us to serve our neighbor unlike the unholy spirits (false teachings) that call us to serve ourselves. May this scriptural God be praised and obeyed now and forever and unto the ages of ages, amen.