Tag Archive for 'jesus'

Faith IV

Published
by
Ken
on October 24, 2008
in Uncategorized and faith
. 0 Comments

We now come to some of the most provocative passages dealing with faith: Matthew 17:14-21 in which Jesus casts out a demon his disciples are unable to cast out; Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14, 20-26 in which Jesus curses the fig tree; and Luke 17:5-6 in which the disciples ask for increased faith. In these passages, Jesus describes the sheer power available to those with the smallest amount of faith:

… if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:20)

… if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it shall happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing,  you shall receive. (Matthew 21:21b,22)

Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you. (Mark 11:22b-24)

If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you. (Luke 17:6)

One of the most interesting aspects of these accounts is the fact that Jesus does not qualify his statements. In two of the accounts all that is necessary is faith like (or as) a mustard seed. In the other two accounts one only need to believe (or have faith) and not doubt. Now, to many, these statements must necessarily be hyperbolic and most will add de facto constraints on Jesus’ statements. For example, the Ryrie Study Bible includes a footnote for the Matthew 17 passage stating, “The will of God, of course, governs all things, including this promise,” and for the Mark 11 passage: “This principle is qualified by Christ in other teaching (Matt. 6:10) and in His own life (Mark 14:36).” In the latter footnote the first reference is the Lord’s Prayer in which we are to pray for God’s will to be done and the second is Christ’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifixion in which he asks God to “remove this cup” but then defers to God’s will over his own.

But, in fact, Jesus does not qualify his statements to the disciples. If, as Ryrie’s footnote maintains, “the will of God, of course, governs all things,” then we have a few potential problems. The first is, of course, that God is responsible for evil since all things are governed by his will; but that is outside the scope of this article. The second is why tell us to pray that God’s will be done if God’s will governs all things? I shall return to this later. Lastly, Jesus is, to put it mildly, not being very fair. Imagine telling your daughter that she can have whatever she wants to eat but then deny her ice cream, cake, a lollipop, and a chocolate bar because you want her to have Brussels sprouts. If you already have in mind what she is going to eat, why give her the choice? If what happens is subjugated to God’s will then why tell us we can do whatever we want?

One way out of the last dilemma is simply to have your daughter ask for Brussels sprouts when that’s what you want her to have. In other words, have her desires coincide with your desires. It is precisely because there is no qualification that the desires of those having faith align with God’s desires that the desires of those having faith will, by definition, align with God’s desires. What Jesus is really telling us is what it takes to be like God: faith like a mustard seed, belief without doubt. Ram Dass takes this idea even further. In The Only Dance There Is, which is a transcription of two of his lectures, he says:

When Christ says “Had ye but faith, ye could move mountains,” he’s not putting you on. This is not some lovely metaphor saying it’s hard just to lead a good clean life. That isn’t what it’s about at all. He’s just telling you how it is: that were you at a certain level of consciousness you could move a mountain, literally. But the way it happens is very far out. It only happens when you have transcended that in you which is separate from the mountain, so that you are, in fact, the mountain, and then you move. … To the extent that you are the mountain that moves, you are also the being that put the mountain there in the first place. He neglected to say that could you move mountains, you probably wouldn’t because you put it there in the first place. (page 76, 77)

Not only are we like God, we are God. Faith puts us in a state where we realize that we are the one who put the mountain there in the first place. Either way, whether we have the same desires as God or we are God, this is a very powerful statement yet deceptively simple. “Have faith in God” and your desires will be those of God. “If you have faith like a mustard seed” you will realize that you are one with God. What could be more simple? Yet nothing could be harder for us to comprehend or achieve.

[ Parts I, II, III ]

Sphere: Related Content

Faith III

Published
by
Ken
on September 9, 2008
in faith
. 2 Comments

[ This series starts here. I've revised the last paragraph in installment #2 and included it here. ]

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to how Jesus may have answered the question is in Matthew 16:5-12:

And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus has two criticisms of his disciples: “Do you not yet understand or remember … ?” Their failure to understand is their misapprehension of his comment about leaven which is not a matter of faith. So, why did Jesus call them “men of little faith”? Because they saw him perform a miracle and doubted that he could do it again. To give them some benefit of the doubt, perhaps they saw this situation as different from the feeding of the five and four thousands. In those cases, they had some bread. Here they have none and see this situation as different and “harder.” One wonders what Jesus told his disciples of his temptation in the dessert. Had he shared what he went through, they would have known that he was able to turn stones into bread. But without this knowledge, this may have seemed an impossible situation. In any case, their lack of faith seems to be manifested in their doubt after seeing Jesus’ past miracles. At this point, even the disciples were not all convinced that Jesus was the Son of God so in what would they have anchored their faith other than Jesus’ past actions? The object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that also not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again.

Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that faith is not “blind” but is based on past experience. In the part about being anxious, Jesus says that we should have faith because we see what God does for the birds and flowers:

“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!” (Matthew 6:30)

But it seems that simply seeing is not enough. As has been demonstrated in the miracles we’ve looked at so far, Jesus emphasizes the aspects of action and expectation in his sermon:

“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:31-33)

The centurion, the men with their friend on the roof, and the hemorrhaging woman all acted in a way that demonstrated their expectation of a healing miracle. The disciples in the boat during the storm acted but without the expectation of the desired outcome and were not credited with having faith. James 6:26 says that “faith without works is dead” and Jesus said “Do this and all these things will be added to you.”

We now come to a miracle in which faith is conspicuously missing (Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-42,49-56). The synagogue official, Jairus, who asked Jesus to heal his daughter seemed to be not much different than the others who demonstrated faith. He believed Jesus could heal but he is not credited with faith—in any of the three accounts. The subtle difference with Jairus’ approach is that he deferred to Jesus by saying “If it is your will …” He fully believed Jesus was able but questioned his willingness—just as the disciples questioned Jesus’ willingness to save them during the storm. Jairus did not presume the healing as did all the others we’ve looked at so far.

Sphere: Related Content

Faith II

Published
by
Ken
on September 7, 2008
in faith
. 2 Comments

[ This series starts here ]

The next two miracles add to faith an aspect of action. They bring to mind platitudes such as, “Just do it” and “Leap and the net will appear.” These are the stories of the man lowered through the roof (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, and Luke 5:18-20) and the woman with the hemorrhage (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, and Luke 8:43-48). In the former story, the narrative says that Jesus saw their faith. Now, putting aside any supernatural interpretation, what Jesus would have seen was their determination to get their friend in front of him—a determination demonstrated by destroying someone else’s property. Many, many people brought the sick to Jesus and they were healed (see Matthew 8:16). So, why was this group singled out as particularly faithful? Again, putting aside any notion of Jesus “seeing into their hearts” or “seeing their true nature,” we are only left with their deliberate action of putting the man in front of Jesus with the expectation of healing. They did not wait in line, they did not ask, they were essentially presumptuous that Jesus would heal if they got in his face. What about “make your requests made known unto God”?

The latter story of the hemorrhaging woman also indicates that faith is manifested by action. In this case, Jesus plays a passive role in the miracle and it is almost as if the woman heals herself. Again, we see presumption on the woman’s part: “If I only touch his garment I will be made well.” There is no notion of asking Jesus for healing or if it is his will. There is only “If I do … I will …” Now, many people were touching Jesus but only this one was healed because she knew she would be. It makes one wonder, did she have to touch Jesus’ garment to be healed? Could her faith not have healed her without doing that physical action? Or did she need to demonstrate her faith with a physical action?

In what do we have faith? The pat answer is that we have faith in God or Jesus. A clue to a more precise answer is in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus scolds the disciples about seeing his past miracles and not thinking he could do it again. So, the object of the faith is Jesus but the motivation for faith is in Jesus’ past actions. Is that not the most logical reason for the actions of people we’ve discussed so far? Perhaps Jesus exuded some special pheromones or had a magnetic personality but it seems more likely that people saw his miracles and some had faith that he could do it again. Obviously, not everyone held this opinion as our current story indicates with the disciples apparently forgetting that Jesus fed 5000 with five loves and two fishes. Indeed, in what else could these people possibly have had faith? It was not a foregone conclusion, at this stage, that Jesus was the Son of God so he would have been nothing more than another teacher; yet a teacher who was working miracles and teaching, perhaps, an offbeat message.

Part III

Sphere: Related Content

Faith I

Published
by
Ken
on September 7, 2008
in faith
. 3 Comments

[ I am working on an essay about Faith and will post it in several sections on my blog. I'm interested in any constructive criticisms you may have that will improve this piece. I will make the final essay available to anyone interested when it is completed. ]

Faith is one of the cornerstones of Christianity but what it means to have faith is open to interpretation. To the one extreme are those who take every precaution this world affords — life, health, disability, and dental insurance; retirement plans; consulting weather forecasts; etc. — and seem to leave little in the hands of faith. To the other extreme are those who avoid all medical care and rely totally and solely on God for healing. So, what is faith? What does it mean to “have” faith? Is there even an objective answer to these questions or is faith completely subjective? To shed some light on the matter of faith, I will look at the miracles which Jesus performed and attempt to find some common threads linking those which Jesus specifically attributes to faith. After establishing what Jesus constitutes as faith, I will look at how faith is portrayed elsewhere in the New Testament and what faith may mean for us today.

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 relates the story of the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant. The two accounts differ somewhat but the essential pieces of the story are that Jesus was asked to heal the servant and the centurion would not let Jesus come into his house but insisted that Jesus had the authority to perform the healing from afar. Being in the Roman army, the centurion claims that he knows something about and appreciates the power that comes with authority. This seems to be what constitutes his faith. It may also have something to do with the fact that the centurion attributed such authority to Jesus but it is not clear whether this was because he knew or believed Jesus to be the Son of God or because he simply recognized a man who possessed authority. In either case, the key seems to be the fact that the centurion knew that Jesus was able to heal his servant and acted on that knowledge by essentially telling Jesus that he had the authority (i.e. the power). The centurion further emphasized Jesus’ authority by not allowing Jesus to physically touch his servant but forced him to delegate, so to speak.

Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:36-41, and Luke 8:22-25 contain an example of a lack of faith with some similarities to the centurion story. This is the story of Jesus calming the storm after falling asleep in the boat with the disciples. The disciples had to wake him up to ask him to save them. Jesus calls them “timid” and “men of little faith.” But the reasoning is a bit confused in this story. If the disciples doubted Jesus’ power, his ability to save them, why did they bother asking him? Would they not have called out to some other god or attempt to save themselves? It seems that what the disciples doubted was Jesus’ desire to save them, hence is love for them, because they asked, “Do you not care that we perish?” This story comes after Jesus’ sermon in Matthew but before a similar discourse in Luke where he tells us to not be anxious for our everyday needs such as food, clothing, and by extension, not drowning in a stormy sea. Adding Jesus’ statements there to the equation, it seems that the disciples should have expected to be saved. Jesus, in his sermons, said, “And all these things shall be added to you.” The centurion told Jesus that he could heal the servant with the expectation that it would be done and this is what the disciples did not do.

So, faith, according to Jesus’ working definition, contains an aspect of expectation of the desired result.

Part II

Sphere: Related Content

The downside of anthropomorphism?

Published
by
Ken
on May 11, 2008
in christianity, god, holy spirit and jesus
. 4 Comments

Reading this post, from Inspirations and Creative Thoughts, about Islamic reaction to the doctrine of the Trinity got me thinking. What are the downsides of thinking about God in anthropomorphic ways?

Along the lines of this post from Exploring Our Matrix, I was also thinking about how the OT God is most often conceptualized as having a location. He was with the Israelites either as the pillar of fire or in the Ark or he was located on Mount Sinai. In all these cases, you could point to one spot be say, “God is there.” At times, God is seen as locating himself, temporarily, in one spot — as with Moses and the burning bush — which de-emphasises his human characterization. The implicit idea is that God was there to communicate with Moses whereas in the previous examples he was more firmly implanted for a longer time frame.

From the NT, we think of Jesus mostly in his incarnated form and as the son of god. We think of him as an historical person (indeed, some Christians fight tooth and nail for an historical Jesus and claim that Christianity is nothing without it) located in a particular place at a particular time. Even now, after his ascension, he is sitting sitting at the right hand of God — an image which restricts both God and Jesus to a particular space.

There is very little in Christianity that focuses our attention away from the human characteristics attributed to God. Sure we talk about his omnipresence but right behind the words is the image of a father. Even in the end, our souls - the numinous part of ourselves - end up located in space, in heaven, where we will be with God and Jesus. You know, I’ve never thought about seeing the Holy Spirit in heaven. Nor have I heard a sermon preached on what role the Holy Spirit will play in heaven. The one part of the Godhead which retains some non-human characteristic is blatantly missing!

The Trinity could be a medium for concentrating on the non-human characteristics of God yet even here we’ve named them God the father and God the son. We force the divine into a human-shaped mold.

Perhaps it’s not all that surprising given the strong anthropomorphic nature of the OT which is Christianity’s heritage. But I think that it is also one reason we react so negatively to other religions. We call the atheistic because they do not have a God that is a father figure. We call them nihilistic because they do not end up in a specific place when they die.

God is more than our anthropomorphic conceptions of him. We can’t even refer to god without assigning a human gender to … him. I think most Christians would be offended if we called God “It.” God is more than our human conceptions otherwise he would not be God; he’d be understood by us. So why do we insist that everyone hold the same limited conceptions as we? Can’t the ineffable be reduced to more than one subset of ideas and still be the same?

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus of Iowa

Published
by
Ken
on March 2, 2008
in jesus
. 3 Comments

I was in a Unity church recently and in one of the stairwells there was a picture of Jesus. He was in his shepherd’s garb and was holding a lamb — you know the one. The only problem was that Jesus looked like a farm boy from Iowa. I shook my head in disapproval and kept walking.

Why did I have that reaction? I think it was, in part, a throwback to my Fundamentalist upbringing. If Jesus was an actual, historical, flesh-n-blood person who was born in Bethlehem to Jewish parents then the odds of his looking like that picture are very slim. And shouldn’t a picture of someone look like they did look, or at least could have looked?

What would you’re response be to my hanging up this picture and saying it was Abraham Lincoln? (Picture credit: www.zztop.com)

That would probably not be very well received. Now, of course, we don’t know what Jesus looked like, but if he was an actual, historical, flesh-n-blood person who was born in Bethlehem to Jewish parents, shouldn’t we at least try to get close?

And what if someone does believe that Jesus was mythological or a conglomeration of ideas or an amalgamation of actual persons? Does that give them “artistic license” to portray Jesus in any manner they choose?

What are your thoughts on this?

Sphere: Related Content

Protection

Published
by
Ken
on January 15, 2008
in christianity and jesus
. 0 Comments

Massive Attack’s song Protection contains the following lyrics:

I stand in front of you
I’ll take the force of the blow
Protection

Lately, the image that is coming to mind when I hear these lyrics is Jesus on the cross and how he took the force of God’s “blow” and “protected” us.

Then I started thinking about “protection” and how the above seems to me to be a passive kind of protection. Passive with regard to the one being protected, that is. There is no notion of trying to change the one you are protecting. Even Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was made without the precondition that we change. It was made whether we change or not. This, to me, is loving protection.

Active modes of protection would be trying to remove the “force” so there is no “blow” or trying to remove the person so the “blow” doesn’t hit her. Both of these modes attempt to alter the circumstances and are unaccepting of the way things are and so are, in many cases, futile because things are what they are.

Later in the song are these words:

Now I can’t change the way you think
But I can put my arms around you
That’s just part of the deal
That’s the way I feel
I put my arms around you

Here, again is a passive, accepting of the circumstances attitude. I’m not trying to change you, I’m just loving you as you are. Synchronistically, I started writing this post yesterday and read a post on Find and Ye Shall Seek today which talks about Christians not showing passive acceptance towards sinners. It’s a real shame that some who profess Jesus as Lord are so oblivious to how much their actions are so unlike the actions of Jesus.

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus for the modern man

Published
by
Ken
on November 24, 2007
in bible, jesus, myth and rudolf bultmann
. 0 Comments

Rudolf Bultmann in Jesus Christ and Mythology writes:

This raises in an acute form the question: what is the importance of the preaching of Jesus and of the preaching of the New Testament as a whole for modern man?

For modern man the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with. Is it possible to expect that we shall make a sacrifice of understanding, sacrificium intellectus, in order to accept what we cannot sincerely consider true—merely because such conceptions are suggested by the Bible?

Or ought we to pass over those sayings of the New Testament which contain such mythological conceptions and to select other sayings which are not such stumbling-blocks to modern man? In fact, the preaching of Jesus is not confined to eschatological sayings. He proclaimed also the will of God, which is God’s demand, the demand for the good. Jesus demands truthfulness and purity, readiness to sacrifice and to love. He demands that the whole man be obedient to God, and he protests against the delusion that one’s duty to God can be fulfilled by obeying certain external commandments. If the ethical demands of Jesus are stumbling-blocks to modern man, then it is to his selfish will, not to his understanding, that they are stumbling-blocks.

What follows from all this? Shall we retain the ethical preaching of Jesus and abandon his eschatological preaching? Shall we reduce his preaching of the Kingdom of God to the so-called social gospel? Or is there a third possibility? We must ask whether the eschatological preaching and the mythological sayings as a whole contain a still deeper meaning which is concealed under the cover of mythology. If that is so, let us abandon the mythological conceptions precisely because we want to retain their deeper meaning. This method of interpretation of the New Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions I call de-mythologizing—an unsatisfactory word, to be sure. Its aim is not to eliminate the mythological statements but to interpret them. It is a method of hermeneutics.

. . .

To de-mythologize is to reject not Scripture or the Christian message as a whole, but the world-view of Scripture, which is the world-view of a past epoch, which all too often is retained in Christian dogmatics and in the preaching of the Church. To de-mythologize is to deny that the message of Scripture and of the Church is bound to an ancient world-view which is obsolete.

This is something about which I’ve been thinking lately: if the Bible is the timeless, eternal Word of a timeless and eternal God then how can it depend on a particular time or world view or world philosophy? It absolutely must be able to speak to me, right now, right here and to you, right then, right there. This is only common sense. Therefore, while figuring out the exact intent of each word based on the writer’s time, place, and current mindset may provide some insight into what the passage meant for the writer and the writer’s contemporary audience, it really has precious little insight for me because I, in my time and place and mindset, am so completely different than the target audience. And forcing me to think of the text as if I were living in the time of the author only causes un-rational, un-defensible beliefs that must be defended at all cost because they are too fragile to be intelligently discussed.

Of course, the major problem I see with this is the four letter word myth. We have a difficult time using the word myth when talking about the Bible or Jesus or God. I’m hoping to discuss myth in more detail later but for now all I’ll quote Bultmann again:

Myths speak about gods and demons as powers on which man knows himself to be dependent, powers whose favor he needs, powers whose wrath he fears. Myths express the knowledge that man is not master of the world and of his life, that the world within which he olives is full of riddles and mysteries and that human life also is full of riddles and mysteries. … Mythology expresses a certain understanding of human existence. … Mythology speaks about this power inadequately and insufficiently because it speaks about it as if it were a worldly power. … Myths give worldly objectivity to that which is unworldly.

So, myth does not mean false, untrue, naive, or a fairy tale—even though that is how we commonly think about myth in this age of science. Myth means that there is a deeper, esoteric meaning beyond the outer, exoteric meaning. It turns the words into symbols charged with inner meaning and gives them eternal life because the inner meaning is able to speak to all times and not just when the words were written. The problem is that we need to learn how to deal with myth again, recognize the mythological nature of the Bible, and “rework” the myth to fit our world. This does not, as Bultmann says, mean rewriting the Bible or rejecting the Bible. It means applying the symbols of the Bible to our day and age.

More later …

Sphere: Related Content

Was Jesus Omniscient?

Published
by
Ken
on November 21, 2007
in alan watts, jesus and rudolf bultmann
. 0 Comments

“Jesus expected”

These two words in Rudolf Bultmann’s Jesus Christ and Mythology stopped me in my tracks and got me thinking about the nature of Jesus.

Bultmann is talking about Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God and his thinking that it “would take place soon, in the immediate future.” The fact that “this hope of Jesus … was not fulfilled” only makes the argument stronger: Jesus was not omniscient.

Then I realized that Jesus was not omnipotent, either. He needed sleep, he needed rest, he needed fortitude, he struggled with his purpose. His temptation not only proved his human-ness but it also seems to question his God-ness. The challenge to toss himself off the nearest tall building only makes sense if he could not have saved himself or survived the fall. The challenge was predicated on God doing the rescuing.

Yet Jesus did perform super-human feats: walking on water, feeding the 5000, calming storms, casting out demons, knowing the hearts and minds of others. So, at times, he does appear omniscient and omnipotent (or, at least, more scient and more potent than your average human). But two things strike me about his miracles. First, Jesus’ God-ness seems to be absent for the most part and then appears at opportune times. Second, the miracles which Jesus performs are not very conclusive proof of his God-ness but rather more strongly demonstrate — due to their intermittency — a power working through him in a manner similar to the miracles performed by the prophets and the apostles.

Now, we also have Jesus’ verbal claim that he was the Son of God but Alan Watts, in Myth and Religion, writes:

… that each one of us is what would be called in Arabic, or Hebrew, the Son of God. The phrase “Son of” means “of the nature of,” as when you call someone a “son of a bitch,” So, “Son of God” means a divine person, a human being who is in the nature of God and realizes it.

And what makes Jesus different than the prophets and apostles is that he realized his divine nature while the others were not so sure. That is why Jesus assumed the presence of the power to perform the miracles and the prophets and apostles were less sure and asked for it.

Where does this leave us? For one thing, it brings Jesus down off the pedastal and makes him much more accessible to you and me. The exhortation to “be like Jesus” is no longer a fairy tale but a feasible possibility (it’s still not easy) since being like God is no longer the standard. Rather, we are “simply” being asked to realize our true nature; to see the divine in all of us.

Sphere: Related Content

The greatest of these is charity

Published
by
Ken
on June 3, 2007
in bible
. 0 Comments

I ran across Mark Burgess’ blog today and found this excellent post. Here are some excerpts:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (King James Bible, John Chapter 14, Verse 6)

This particular verse is the mainstay of the fundamentalist evangelical movement. It basically says that all you have to do is believe in Christ, establish a personal relationship with him, and accept his as your savior, and you’re saved.

This conveniently allows you to go through life ignoring everything else that Jesus taught regarding the importance of loving others.

. . .

-And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Corinthians 13, Verse 13)

The Greek word “agape” is usually translated as “love” in newer translations of the Bible, whereas the King James version translates it as “charity”. Translating agape as love means that you can “love” your neighbor without doing anything… whereas “charity” clearly communicates the imperative of action.

Some excellent, well articulated thoughts, Mark. Thank you.

Sphere: Related Content