Christianity and Old Testament Law, Part I

One of the oldest traditions in Christianity is the belief that Jewish laws and customs are not binding upon followers of Christ. When Jesus died, the argument goes, he rendered Mosaic Law irrelevant. Salvation, then, comes from belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection, and not from following the rules and regulations of the Old Testament.

This tradition goes back to the earliest days of Christianity, and the basic formulation was developed by Paul and taught amongst the congregations he founded throughout the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Today, not only are Paul’s letters used to support this notion, but even words attributed to Jesus can be called upon to undergird the tradition.

What exactly are these commandments, and why don’t Christians follow them?

JEWISH LAW AND CUSTOM

First, it is necessary to clear the air on what is meant by common phrases such as “Jewish Law,” “Mosaic Law,” “The Law and the Prophets,” or sometimes just “the Law.” All of these phrases mean the same thing, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in many circles about exactly what they refer to.

Jewish Law came in two parts, and it included far more than simply legal codes dictating criminal and civil offenses. To be sure, Jewish Law included these things, but it also included rules and regulations dictating daily behavior and customs of the Jewish people. It included things such as how to make clothes, how to plant fields and how to raise cattle, how to treat others in relationships, how to prepare food, how to structure family life, and so on. Of course, it also detailed the sacrificial system of ancient Judaism. In short, it was a complete system of legal, religious, and cultural codes for living as a Jew in the ancient world.

The first aspect of this Jewish Law consisted of written laws and customs. Most came from the Torah – that is, the first five books of the Christian Old Testament, also called the Pentateuch, and believed by the ancient Jews to have been given by Moses. By the time of Jesus, Jewish scripture included a lot more than just these five books. There were also texts detailing Jewish history, books of poetry, proverbs, and literature, and books of prophecy. Some Jewish sects, both then and know, followed only the Torah. Mainstream Judaism, however, regarded these other traditional Jewish texts as scripture, and this is where familiar New Testament phrases such as “the Law and the Prophets” come from. The Law was the Torah; the Prophets were the books of prophecy such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a dozen others.

In addition to this written aspect of Jewish Law – those codes and customs outlined in Jewish scripture – there was also an oral aspect that consisted of the interpretation of these codes and customs. This interpretive aspect of Jewish Law was well established in oral form by the time of Jesus, but did not achieve codification in written form until several centuries after the time of Jesus. Collectively called the Talmud, these interpretative traditions were the hallmark of the Pharisees, an influential group of 1st century Jews whose practices and traditions became the basis of Rabbinical Judaism, which has been the most common form of Judaism for nearly two millennia.

These two aspects of Jewish religious and cultural customs – Torah and Talmud, the instructions of Moses and the rabbinical interpretation of those instructions – constitute what is meant by phrases such as “Jewish Law.”

JEWISH LAW AND CHRISTIANITY

For most of Christian history, Christians have disregarded Jewish Law, both the written Law of Moses and the rabbinical interpretation of that Law. It is perhaps easy to see why Christians have never given much thought to the interpretative side of Jewish Law. In the Gospels, Jesus himself is frequently depicted at odds with the Pharisees – the experts of interpretation – and consistently insults and degrades them, even as he disagrees with them in their interpretations. While much of the antagonism in the Gospels between Jesus and the Pharisees is a reflection of the antagonism between Christians and Jews of the late 1st century, there is little doubt that Jesus had run-ins during his life with the Pharisees, whom he saw as collaborators with Roman imperial domination. As a rural Galilean, the Pharisees would have seen Jesus as a rabble-rouser and fiery revolutionary, while Jesus, for his part, would have seen the Pharisees as pretentious, so-called “experts” who were more concerned with their scholarship than with real people in real life. One might compare this situation to a Pentecostal preacher from rural Alabama meeting a group of Reformed theologians from Oxford.

But in addition to dismissing the interpretive traditions of the Pharisees and their later rabbinical successors, Christians have also long rejected the written Law of the Old Testament – the set of laws and customs ostensibly given by God to his chosen people.

As we saw above, this rejection of written Mosaic Law comes largely from the influence of the apostle Paul.

Paul was one of the earliest and certainly most influential Christians. Though he never followed or even knew of Jesus during Jesus’ life, he was converted to Christianity within a few years of Jesus’ death, after a vision of the resurrected Christ.

The Apostle Paul

Very early on, he seems to have begun to jettison his old ways within Judaism, and by about 50 C.E., a major conflict arose between Paul and the leaders of the Christian community in Jerusalem.

To put it briefly, the Jerusalem community in the time of Paul was the center of Christendom. It was to Paul’s era what Rome is today to Catholics. This community was supported by many of Jesus’ disciples (such as Peter and John), and led by Jesus’ brother, James. To these Christian leaders, Christianity was essentially a sect within Judaism. It was not a different religion from Judaism, but was instead a new form of Jewish practice. These Jewish Christians believed very strongly that Christianity should remain part of Judaism – in other words, Jewish traditions and customs were still very much a part of their religious practice.

Paul, on the other hand, believed that Jesus’s resurrection had effectively done away with these traditions, and following Jewish Law was no longer necessary. If pressed on the matter, I’m sure Paul would have agreed that if someone wanted to follow Jewish customs, they were certainly entitled to do so, but his argument was that these customs were no longer necessary for salvation. Instead, salvation came through faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, which Paul saw as the ultimate and final atonement for human sin. Since Jesus made himself the ultimate sacrifice, humans could now be forgiven and thus saved, with or without adherence to the Law of Moses.

Needless to say, the Church in Jerusalem did not take Paul’s ideas very well. As described in the book of Acts, and also discussed by Paul himself in Galatians, things came to a head when Paul visited Jerusalem in about 50 C.E. The Jerusalem leaders attempted to reach a compromise with Paul, and agreed that while Paul’s converts did not need to become circumcised (which, in the ancient world, was the “official” way that someone became Jewish), they did need to follow Jewish dietary customs. Specifically, according to Acts, they were to refrain from eating food sacrificed to idols, food from strangled animals, and any food with blood in it.

Paul seems to have accepted this compromise, then immediately gone back to the missionary field and ignored it. Time and again in his letters, Paul insists that “all food is clean,” and even goes so far as to suggest that eating food sacrificed to idols is permissible, because idols are not real, they are simply inanimate objects. The only exception to this rule, for Paul, is when someone’s dietary habits may cause problems for someone else. In other words, if a Christian is eating with another Christian, and the second Christian believes strongly in the difference between “clean” and “unclean” food, then the first Christian should respect that belief and only eat “clean” food when they are eating with that person. Otherwise, “all food is clean” and permissible to eat.

In time, after Paul’s death and the deaths of James, Peter, and the other early Christian leaders, Christianity slowly became more and more of a non-Jewish religion. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. by the Romans, there was no longer a Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem, and the center of Christendom shifted first to Alexandria in Egypt, and later, of course, to Rome. This led, during the last few decades of the 1st century, to a painful separation between Christianity and Judaism, a separation that is reflected in the Gospels, which were written around this time. By the start of the 2nd century, Christianity was essentially a non-Jewish religion, and Paul’s viewpoint won the day.

One example of this is reflected in the letter of 1 Timothy, a letter forged in Paul’s name in the late 1st century. The writer is discussing false Christian teachers, which he calls “hypocritical liars,” and he states that they teach people to “abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving.” The writer goes on to say: “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” So much for the views of James and Peter that some foods are unclean.

Christians from that time to now have left Jewish Law and Jewish customs behind them.

JESUS AND JEWISH LAW

We have looked at what Jewish Law was, and we have also seen why Christians don’t follow Jewish Law. Even though the earliest Christians – the followers of Jesus and their converts – seem to have adhered strongly to Jewish norms and customs, and seem to have believed, at least early on, that one needed to become Jewish in order to be Christian, Paul challenged all that and spread the gospel of Jesus to non-Jews, leading Christianity to an eventual separation from Judaism all together. It became, by the end of the 1st century, a non-Jewish religion that did not adhere to Jewish laws and customs.

But since Jesus is the heart and soul of Christianity, one might wonder what Jesus himself had to say on this matter. For many Christians (and for institutional Christianity in general) Jesus was not just a prophet, but the Son of God, even God himself in human form. For Christians, then, one would expect Jesus’s words to carry significant weight.

Many folks may be surprised to discover that Jesus seems to have strongly affirmed adherence to Jewish Law. Consider, for instance, Matthew 23, where Jesus states: “The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat. You must obey them and do everything they tell you.” He goes on to encourage his listeners not to be hypocritical like the Pharisees, but he affirms that their teaching of the Law is sound and his listeners should follow it. For Jesus in this passage, the problem with the Pharisees is not their reliance on Jewish Law, but on the fact that they are hypocrites who don’t really follow it.

Consider also a story repeated in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, where Jesus heals a man with leprosy. Afterwards, he instructs the man to go to the temple to be ritually purified and to “offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded.” Clearly he found these customs to be necessary.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, provided by Luke, Jesus tells of a beggar named Lazarus who always had to eat the scraps from the table of a rich man.

The Rich Man and Lazarus, by Leandro Bassano

The rich man lived the high life and consistently ignored the plight of Lazarus. In time, both men died, with the rich man going to hell, and Lazarus going “to the bosom of Abraham.” The rich man begs Abraham to let Lazarus return to earth to warn his brothers about the dangers of luxurious living. Abraham responds that the rich man’s brothers “have Moses and the Prophets” and that they should “listen to them.” Abraham goes on to say that if the rich man’s brothers won’t listen to Moses, then neither will they listen to someone who is raised from the dead (i.e. Lazarus). Jesus, through this parable, is affirming the salvific nature of Mosaic Law.

In a story related in Matthew and Mark, Jesus is approached by a Gentile who wants him to heal her daughter. Jesus flatly refuses to do so, stating that he has come only “to the lost sheep of Israel” and that it is not right to take “the children’s bread” (that is, Jesus’s teachings) and “toss it to the dogs” (that is, unclean Gentiles). The woman persists, however, and Jesus finally agrees to heal her daughter. But he does it from a distance; he does not go to the woman’s unclean, Gentile house.

A similar story is found in both Matthew and Luke. Here, the Gentile is a Roman centurion, and the sick person is his servant. Jesus agrees to heal the servant, but, as with the story from Matthew, he does not go to the centurion’s house, and instead heals the servant from afar.

It is noteworthy to point out that these are the only two healings attributed to Jesus from afar. They are also the only two healings of Gentiles attributed to Jesus. In the Gospel tradition, Jesus keeps away from Gentiles, because he viewed them as unclean, which was consistent with a Jewish worldview.

Finally, there is a passage from Matthew where Jesus explicitly talks about adherence to Jewish Law and customs:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is hard to imagine how Jesus could be more explicit. “Until heaven and earth disappear” – that is, until the end of time – the Law of Moses is valid. Unless your righteousness – that is, your adherence to God’s commandments – exceeds even the righteousness of the Pharisees, who are famous for their strict adherence to the Law, you will not see God’s kingdom.

CONCLUSION

This final passage from Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is a difficult one to reconcile in light of traditional Christian practice. As we saw above, from the time of Paul, Christians began rejecting Jewish laws and customs, and by the beginning of the 2nd century, virtually no Christian followed any of the laws of Moses, except those that they found particularly important. This is true even today, as many Christians revere the Ten Commandments, but handily reject countless other mandates from the Old Testament.

As we have seen, Jesus was a Jewish man, living in the Jewish homeland, and teaching and preaching within the worldview of 1st century Judaism. In the Gospel of Matthew in particular, Jesus is fiercely loyal to Jewish laws and customs, and explicitly states that these commandments are valid for all time – indeed, “until heaven and earth disappear.”

In Part II of this series, we will look much more closely at this passage from Matthew and consider how we might reconcile it with modern Christian practice.

Christianity is a Verb

The title of this essay is a phrase I have been using recently in discussions about religion and the nature of Christianity. I have frequently said that I would like to write a book by that title. More than anything, however, I’d like to live my life in conjunction with it.

Christianity isn’t a title and most certainly isn’t an entitlement. “Christian” isn’t something you are; it’s something you do. Christianity isn’t the group you align yourself with; it’s the lifestyle you lead each and every day. Church isn’t an activity center; it’s a community outreach center.

In our earliest Christian writings, texts found both within the New Testament and outside the New Testament, we find that discussions like this – discussions about the very nature of Christianity and what it means to call one’s self a Christian – go back to the earliest days of Christianity. In New Testament theology, this discussion is one that goes by the more familiar theme of “faith vs. works.”

Faith was an integral part of early church life, much as it is today. For modern Christians, “faith” generally means trusting that God exists, that Jesus was his divine son, that he died for our sins, and that he rose again after three days.

For the earliest generation of Christians, however, “faith” was somewhat different. First, the question of God’s existence wasn’t one that generally concerned people. “Atheist” in the first century typically referred to someone who believed in a different god, not someone who had no faith in any gods. Someone who believed in no gods at all would likely have been called insane, rather than atheist.

Second, the earliest Christians didn’t think of Jesus as “divine,” the way that we do today. The idea that Jesus was literally God in the flesh did not come about in Christian circles until well after the first generations of Christians. The Trinity doctrine, for instance, wasn’t formulated and adopted until the 4th century C.E. For the earliest Christians, faith in Jesus meant faith that Jesus was a uniquely “God-inspired” person; a teacher and prophet through whom God worked directly; a human being through whom one could meet and engage the spirit of God. For a Jewish Christian in the 1st century, the very suggestion that Jesus had been God himself would have been seen as the worst kind of blasphemy. It would never have even crossed their minds. For Jews, God was so completely “other” that they didn’t even write his name. They used code words – abbreviations, essentially – to refer to God.

Third, while the idea of Jesus’ atonement and resurrection was an early development in Christian history, “resurrection” had a different meaning for those earliest Christians than it has for us today. Jewish tradition had conceived of resurrection as a physical event that happens to the body; you die, you are buried, and then your body comes back to life and you rise up out of your tomb. In Jewish theology, this was an event that was expected at the end of time, when God would finally reconcile the broken world to himself.

Jewish Christians, however, came to understand resurrection quite differently. Faced with the stark reality that their teacher had been brutally and unceremoniously executed by the Romans, they came to understand that, in death, Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of God. He had died for their sins, like the Passover lamb, and had been raised up to the heavenly realms. For these earliest Christians, Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension happened simultaneously. It wasn’t until later that Jesus’ resurrection and ascension was separated from his death. So when those early Christian texts talk about resurrection, they are talking about spiritual resurrection, not bodily resurrection. When they talk about the risen Jesus appearing to people, they are talking about spiritual apparitions and religious ecstasy, not a literally dead person literally coming back to life and re-entering society. That sort of literalistic understanding of early Jewish Christian scripture is a product of later centuries and later Christians unfamiliar with the unique religious worldview of 1st century Jewish Christians.

Some of my readers may find this last point particularly difficult to accept. I recognize that and am sensitive to it. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter whether one conceives of resurrection as spiritual or physical – it might have been either one. Ultimately, it is a faith proclamation in either case, because it’s also possible that it didn’t happen at all, that Jesus just died and was dead. What is far more important is what that faith proclamation means for us as Christians.

And that ultimate meaning brings us back to faith vs. works. The apostle Paul, in his many writings now extant in the New Testament, talks a lot about faith. In a cursory examination of the NIV translation, I counted exactly 100 repetitions of some form of the word “faith” within Paul’s letters. And that was only counting the 7 letters scholars widely agree came from Paul. There are 6 or 7 others that have traditionally been attributed to him as well. Clearly faith was important for Paul.

Paul’s words about faith – particularly in Romans – have led to what I see as a major problem in modern Christianity. This is the idea that we are saved by “faith alone.” Paul argues, throughout Romans and elsewhere, that Christians are saved by faith, and not “works of the law.” This has been misunderstood in mainstream Christianity to mean that the “profession of faith” in God and Jesus is all that really matters. If you profess your faith and mean it, and if you “ask Jesus into your heart,” then you have attained salvation. Of course, there is plenty of lip service given to leading a good life, being kind to others, “living like Jesus,” and so on. But all of that is just icing on the cake. Salvation is actually attained by the profession of faith. It’s good to do the other stuff too, but it’s not required.

For me, this is a quite depressing misunderstanding of Paul, and it’s one that is unfortunately extremely common among Christians. When Paul spoke about “works of the law,” he wasn’t talking about “good deeds.” He was talking about Mosaic Law – Old Testament commandments about how Jews should live their lives. He was talking about things like dietary restrictions, lifestyle codes, circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, appropriately celebrating the various Jewish holy days, and so on. He was saying that these things don’t provide salvation because they are ultimately impossible to follow perfectly. Instead, salvation comes from God’s grace, through faith. And that isn’t just plain old faith. Paul makes it clear that the kind of faith he is talking about is “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In other words, faith is an action, not a mere profession.

That this was misunderstood even in the earliest generations of Christianity is apparent within the New Testament itself. People came to understand that all they had to do was profess faith in Jesus, and they were set. They had their “get out of death free” card. Much of the book of James is a response to misunderstandings Christians had over Paul’s direction about faith. James attacks those who think that mere professions of faith are good enough for salvation. What good is it, James asks, if you wish someone well, but don’t actually do anything to help them? In 2:17, he says: “Faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” The word “works” in that passage is not referring to Mosaic Law. It is referring to good deeds. James is attacking the platitudes and religious stagnation he saw around him. People had their profession of faith, their conversion to Christianity, and they were content to sit on it, offering lip service at best. James says no. James says that’s wrong. James says you have misunderstood Paul. Paul was talking about Mosaic Law as it related to faith, not good deeds or lovingkindness in relation to faith. James makes clear what Paul frequently left ambiguous – that faith without good deeds and loving actions was a dead faith. It was meaningless. It served no purpose. It was, as I have said elsewhere, a windmill with no wind.

Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since the time of James. Many Christians still think a profession of faith is all they need to attain salvation. Like the Christians of James’ era, they have their “get out of death free” card, and they are content to sit on it. It’s too challenging to actually follow Jesus in the lifestyle he taught. It’s too challenging to actually give ourselves away to others. And more than that, it’s not at all convenient to our modern way of life in this materialistic, individualistic western society.

Jesus showed his followers how to live for others. He showed his followers how to love one another and work together for the common good. He demonstrated how the kingdom of God is a present reality that we all can take part in. He taught that the kingdom of God is our responsibility, not some future event that we have no control over. Early Christians textualized this teaching and asserted the importance of faith working through acts of love and compassion. For Jesus and the earliest Christians, salvation was never about the future. It was about the here and now, and it was attained through acts of love.

As a Christian, I don’t engage much in absolutes. I recognize that what we know about Jesus comes from ancient texts that are wide open to interpretation. I recognize that we can’t know anything about God other than what we discern from those texts that we consider authoritative, and from our own personal religious practice – prayer, meditation, etc. I believe that God can be approached from many different religious traditions and I do not believe in claims of theological exclusivity. I feel a high level of contempt for those religious persons who claim to have the exclusive pathway to heaven, and anyone who doesn’t follow them has an exclusive pathway to hell.

For me, salvation is about life in the here and now. I have hope for an afterlife, but religion, for me, is about how we act and live together here on earth, in the present. So when I talk of “being saved” or “not being saved,” I am not talking about eschatology – that is, ideas about the ultimate destiny of humanity and the world. I am not talking about the end of the world and what will happen to humans after they die. I don’t know what happens to people after they die. Instead, I am talking about life in the present. Salvation for me, then, is expressing love for God through acts of love for others. Those two things cannot be separated. I cannot express love for God unless I am living for others, and I cannot live for others without expressing love for God. I approach this salvation through the teachings of Jesus and the earliest Christians who taught in his name. If someone approaches God from a different religious tradition, but one with ultimately the same ends, then I consider them a brother or sister in God.

For me, if a Christian is not expressing love for God through acts of love for others – that is, if they are not living for others rather than for themselves – then they are not taking part in the kingdom of God promised by Jesus. They are Christians in name only – which means they aren’t Christians at all. As James said, their faith is as good as a corpse.

Even though those words come without any underlying threat of eternal damnation and ultimate eschatological absolutes, I realize they may seem harsh. And lest I appear as a monstrous hypocrite, I will be the first to admit that I frequently fall short.

There is nothing more difficult in modern western society than to actually live like Jesus taught us to live. Our culture teaches us to pursue wealth, pursue material and personal gain, pursue power and influence and authority and status, and live for ourselves even at the expense of others. It teaches us that individualism is the ultimate expression of humanity, and reinforces the idea that if someone fails or falls on hard times, they probably have only themselves to blame. We promote charity, but we expect to get a tax write-off for doing it. We promote living Godly lives, but we expect divine blessings in the form of material gain for doing it – the age old Gospel of Prosperity. We toss a few bucks in the offering plate, give some money to the Santa Claus at the Salvation Army bucket every Christmas, and give our old, worn-out clothes to Goodwill – and we think it’s enough. We’re nice to people, we try not to be hateful, and we generally attempt to be contributing members of society – and we think it’s enough. We say our prayers, we attend worship services, and we don’t take the Lord’s name in vain – and we think it’s enough.

My argument is that it’s not enough. My argument is that the life of Christ is a life of service to others. Not service just when it’s convenient. Not service in the form of platitudes. But a real, living, active lifestyle of service for others. Living for others and not for ourselves. Putting the needs of others ahead of the needs of ourselves.

That’s salvation. That’s living as part of the kingdom of God. That’s true faith. And even if we frequently fail to live to those standards, the least we can do is try. Make the attempt. When we fail, try again. And never stop trying.

If we do that, we are following the life of Christ. We are living Christianity as a verb. If not, we are just silent windmills in a vacuum.

Taking the Lord's Name in Vain

Make sure to read my newest essay on this topic, a sort of addendum to the essay below: Taking God's Name in Vain.

****

Growing up as I did in the Southern Baptist tradition, perhaps one of my earliest exposures to Biblical content as a child was the instruction from the Ten Commandments not to “take the Lord’s name in vain.”

I understood from a very young age that this was extremely important, and that “taking the Lord’s name in vain” involved using any name of God as a swear word – what a grammar teacher might call an “exclamatory interjection.” This, of course, included not only “God,” but also “Jesus,” “Christ,” and even “Lord.” Among true swear words, “goddamn” was without question the most blasphemous and evil, because it not only included a dirty word, but also tied the name of God into its nastiness. Even into adulthood, long after I gave up the belief that I was in danger of hell fire for saying a swear word, “GD” still remained taboo for me. This is certainly still true for many people who might otherwise say a swear word now and then.

But what does it really mean to take the Lord’s name in vain? Does it refer to using God’s name as a swear word – an exclamation – or does it mean something entirely different? What were the intentions of those Biblical authors who included that command in the Ten Commandments, or, if you prefer a more traditional approach, what did God mean when he instructed his followers not to take his name in vain?

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Few Christians realize that there are actually several incarnations of the Ten Commandments in the Jewish scriptures – Christianity’s Old Testament. In fact, we are given no less than three “Ten Commandments” lists. The lists in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are fairly similar, but the one in Exodus 34 – the “new” list that God gave Moses after the first set of tablets were destroyed – varies quite dramatically from the old list. This new list, interestingly enough, has nothing about taking God’s name in vain.

Why, then, do we tend to go by the “old” list in modern Christian circles, instead of the “new” list, given to Moses after the first chiseled list got broken? If we did, the issue of taking the Lord’s name in vain might not be an issue at all. It’s an interesting question, and it probably has something to do with the fact that this new list is way too “Jewish” for most Christian sensibilities. Among its ten commandments is a command to celebrate certain Jewish festivals; it instructs Jews to sacrifice all their first-born animals to God; it insists that the faithful may not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Be that as it may, what has come down to us as the “Ten Commandments” are those lists found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, both of which include the instruction not to take the Lord’s name in vain. The wording of both instructions is identical.

Exodus 20:7a/Deuteronomy 5:11a (KJV) – Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

The more modern NIV uses a slightly different translation to get across the idea that this verse is dealing with petty things like using God’s name as a swear word: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”

With theologically-tinged translations like the NIV, and with centuries of Christian ideology that says this verse bans us from saying “God” as an exclamatory interjection, most Christians read this verse and probably can’t imagine how it can be saying anything else.

THE VERSE IN HEBREW

A number of discoveries about the meaning of this instruction can be found by looking at the verse in its original language. I don’t speak Hebrew, and I’m certain than few if any of my readers do, so I’ll take it one keyword at a time. I realize that this sort of linguistic exercise is cumbersome for most people, but I hope my readers will stick with me, because understanding what the original words are actually saying is vital to the point I will make shortly.

Nasa’

The first primary word in the passage is nasa’. This word is used some 600+ times in the Old Testament, and generally means to “take up,” or “lift up,” or “accept.”

Shem

This word means “name,” or “reputation.” It is the word used any time that an Old Testament writer referred to the name of someone or something.

Yehovah

The word “Lord” in the NIV and KJV translations is the Hebrew word Yehovah, which would actually have been written as YHWH, the tetragrammaton that was believed to be the literal name of God. It comes down to us in English as “Jehovah” or “Yaweh.” Just as Egypt had Horus, and Rome had Jupiter, the Hebrews had Yaweh.

‘Elohiym

This is the word in the passage that is translated as “God.” In ancient Hebrew, it was a catch-all word that generally referred to “the gods” or the “heavenly host.” When used together with YHWH, it was the official way of referring to the God of the Jews – Yehovah ‘Elohiym – much as Christians might say “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In English Old Testament translations, it is usually written as “The Lord your God.”

Shav’

This is the word that is translated as “vain” in the King James Version. In ancient Hebrew, it meant “falsehood,” or “emptiness,” or “nothingness.”

Now that we have looked at the Hebrew words making up the first part of the verse, it is instructive to take a look at what they are actually saying: “Don’t take up or accept the name of God with falsehood or emptiness.”

“DON’T TAKE THE LORD’S NAME IN VAIN”

As the last phrase of the previous paragraph implies, I find that the original meaning of this familiar commandment is something entirely different than what most people suppose. But before making my argument, it is important to look at just what the logical consequences are of assuming that this commandment has anything to do with how someone physically utters the name of God.

In ancient Judea, Jews believed that God’s name – the aforementioned “Yaweh” – was so sacred and immortal that it literally should not be spoken, ever. It wasn’t used in everyday speech; it wasn’t used in the synagogue. It wasn’t even written out; as I have already illustrated, a tetragrammaton, or 4-letter code, was used instead – YHWH. Gentiles and pagans – like the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. – routinely referred to their gods by name. Since anything that stunk of paganism to the Jews was summarily rejected, it is not surprising that they developed a theology that said even the very name of God was untouchable and unworthy of being spoken by a human being. “God” (or, in Hebrew, “'Elohiym”), of course, was perfectly permissible, and would have been how God was referred to in everyday language. “Yaweh,” however, was not to be uttered.

So to suggest that this verse has something to do with not using God’s name as a swear word (i.e., an exclamatory interjection) is simply not supportable in the context of the ancient Hebrew kingdom. They wouldn’t have ever said the name, as a swear word or otherwise.

There are other issues, of course, with assuming such a meaning. First, if the commandment is talking about not misusing the physical name of God, then it is instructing us not to say “Aw, Yaweh!” when we stub our toe. It says nothing of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christ.” “God” is not the name of God – “Yaweh” is – and Jesus, after all, was merely the human incarnation of God, and his name – Jesus – is not the name of God either.

One might argue, however, that as the human incarnation of God, Jesus’ name has the same sacredness as God’s name. Even if we take that as fact, “Jesus” was not Jesus’ name! “Jesus” is simply the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of Jesus’ real Aramaic name. Jesus’ real earthly name was “Yeshua,” which is the same name that the successor of Moses in the Old Testament had – Joshua. In the Old Testament, our English Bibles translate “Yeshua” directly into English – thus “Joshua.” The New Testament, however, was originally written in Greek, so “Yeshua” first goes into Greek and becomes “Iesus,” and then into English as “Jesus.”

So, again, if we want to simplify the commandment in question, then we shouldn’t say “Yeshua!” when we burn our finger. “Jesus,” however, is apparently perfectly permissible.

Finally, “Christ” is at issue as well. “Christ” is – again – an English transliteration of a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Mosiah. That word meant “anointed one,” in Hebrew. In Greek, “anointed one” is translated as Khristos. From there, we get the transliterated word “Christ.” This word, of course, was not Jesus’ last name. “Jesus Christ” means “Jesus the anointed one,” or “Jesus the Messiah.” It was a way of differentiating who he was versus other people with his name. Jesus the Anointed One versus Jesus the Newspaper Man, as it were. A good comparison is to consider the name “John the Baptist.” No one supposes his last name was “the Baptist.”

Thus, yet again, there can be no reason why “Christ” is impermissible as a swear word.

I hope that my tone here has been clear: the point I am trying to make is not to downplay the sacredness of the names “God,” and “Jesus,” and “Christ” to modern Christians. What I am attempting to do is show how silly it is to make an argument that this instruction from the Ten Commandments has anything to do with the physical utterance of a sacred name for swearing or other unsacred purposes. Yet this is what the argument must boil down to if one wants to insist on understanding this Old Testament commandment in this manner.

A MEANING THAT MATTERS

We return once again to the meaning of the commandment in question, when understood in the original language: “Don’t take up or accept the name of God with falsehood or emptiness.”

It is noteworthy to point out that at least one other verse in the Old Testament uses similar language. Both nasa’ (to “take up” or “accept”) and shav’ (“emptiness” or “nothingness”) appear in the book of Psalms.

Psalm 24:4 (KJV) – He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

The key phrase there is “lifted up his soul unto vanity.” This phrase, in Hebrew, is identical to the phrase from the Ten Commandments, replacing only the noun “his soul” with the compound noun “the name of the Lord your God.” Clearly the meaning of this verse from the Psalms is that one should not give his soul over to emptiness or meaninglessness.

In the same way, I argue that “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain” has a similar meaning. Do not meaninglessly take the name of God upon yourself. In other words: You can profess your faith all you want, but without living the lifestyle that comes with the acceptance of God’s name, your faith is meaningless and in vain.

This idea, of course, has numerous corollaries in the New Testament. In Matthew, Jesus assures us that not all those who say “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of God. James reminds us that faith without works is not just unpleasing to God – but actually dead. There is no such thing, James tells us, as faith without a changed nature accompanying it. Paul asserts in Romans that God will judge us by whether we do good or evil.

From where I stand, I see many Christians navigating this way through life. Christianity is just a “get out of death free card.” They’ve made their profession of faith, they “believe in Jesus,” and now they can get on with their life and have a little comfort about what happens when they and their loved ones die. Evangelical theology frequently supports this, with their plans of salvation and their promise that all God requires is that you “believe in him.” In fact, God requires a lot more. And God warns us against taking his name upon ourselves in vain.

I firmly believe that the “profession of faith” that is so common and so primary in many evangelical churches is meaningless and even unbiblical. Yes, the Bible stresses the importance of faith, but it stresses even more the importance of “faith in action.” I said it above, but it bears repeating: James even goes so far as to say that faith without action is dead. It’s non-faith. It’s meaningless. The profession of faith isn’t what matters; it’s how you act that counts.

Jesus called us to have life and have it more abundantly. He called us to new birth. He called us to a celebration of life and an experience of life at its deepest and most human levels. He never called us to get out of death free. The message of Jesus was imminently and forever about living, about breaking down the boundaries that divide us and reduce life, not about what happens when we die.

So a profession of faith – claiming God for yourself so you can have a little comfort – without actually living the life Jesus taught us to live…well, it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain.

The Debate that Never Was: Faith vs. Works

Most Christians are likely to be familiar with the question of faith versus works, and the discussion about which one is more important. Some churches stress faith: make the public or private profession, accept Jesus into your life, and rest assured of your place in eternity. Other churches focus on works: faith alone is not enough; we must demonstrate our faith through our actions.

Though others with different experiences might disagree with me, it has long been my impression that most Christian churches, and most Christian believers, tend to abide more by the first option – faith is what really matters in the end. I think this is probably particularly true in evangelical churches, which stress salvation and mission work. Someone may be a "bad" Christian if their actions do not follow their profession of faith, but it is the profession of faith and the acceptance of God's free gift of grace that ultimately secures a place for us in heaven. Many Christians, in fact, do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation once the gift has been accepted, no matter how "bad" they may subsequently behave.

I would like to propose a completely different take on this long-standing debate.

PAUL AND JAMES

It has often been asserted – in fact, I have done so myself – that the New Testament teaches opposing views on this topic. This, of course, is one of the primary reasons for the very existence of the debate. If the New Testament was crystal clear on this topic, there would be no reason for Christians to deliberate upon it. Indeed, common knowledge indicates that Paul teaches that faith is what saves us, while James teaches that faith without works is a dead faith.

In the past, I have argued that James' teachings may likely have come – at least in part – in direct response to Paul. Early Christians who studied Paul came to understand professions of faith as the most important, perhaps the only important, aspect of the Christian life. James, then, in an effort to contradict this, taught that faith is only the beginning; true faith, for James, was demonstrated through good works. James was clarifying Paul.

I still believe this is a likely scenario, because it cannot be denied that much of Paul's theology seems primarily faith-based and not works-based. Paul, writing in the book of Romans, says: "For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law." Later in the same text, Paul asserts that the Jews have not found righteousness, despite their devotion to the law. To explain why, he states in 9:32: "Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works."

In another letter, this time to the church in Galatia, Paul states: "…we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law."

In an oft-quoted passage from Ephesians, Paul says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

James, on the other hand, states his case in quite opposing terms. In James chapter 2, the writer states: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,' and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."

James' point could not be clearer. True faith is demonstrated by action. Without action, the faith is not real, and no salvation – whatever you understand that term to mean – will come from your profession of faith.

So who, then, was right? Do we follow Paul's teachings about the primacy of faith, or James' teachings about the primacy of works?

I think the problem with that question is that it assumes a dichotomy that is not really there. I do not believe that James and Paul were that much different in how they viewed the Christian life, and I believe they would have largely agreed on just what it meant for someone to call themselves a Christian.

Simply put, for Paul and James both, a Christian was someone whose life was transformed by faith in God through Jesus.

The key phrase there is not "faith in God through Jesus," but rather "someone whose life was transformed by faith." A profession of faith is meaningless. A changed nature, based on the transforming power of a life led in the footsteps of Jesus, is what really saves us.

But what does that fancy Sunday School talk really mean? To get the answer to that question, Christians need to understand just how it was that Jesus taught us to live.

JESUS'S VISION FOR HUMANITY

It is well-established that Jesus was a kind of alternate-wisdom teacher who came out of the backwoods of Galilee teaching and preaching a new vision for humankind, encouraging his followers to shrug off the yoke of oppressive religious systems and embrace a life of love, compassion, and selflessness. Whether one supposes that Jesus did this because he was the divine son of God, or simply because he was an exceptionally gifted human being uniquely in touch with the societal problems of his day, does not change the fact that Jesus preached a revolutionary message, calling his followers to have new life, and to have it more abundantly.

In Matthew chapter 25, Jesus describes those who will inherit the kingdom of God. He states that the kingdom is reserved for those who feed the hungry, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit and minister to those in prison – in other words, those who put others before themselves and who use their gifts and abilities in service to others. "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." Jesus then points out that those who do not do these things – those who watch out for number one, those who lead lives of self-serving hypocrisy – will live in perpetuity apart from God.

In John 15:17, Jesus puts it more simply, "I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another." Or, as it is stated in the NIV: "This is my command: Love each other."

In Matthew chapter 22, Jesus states that the two "greatest" commandments are to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

In Luke 7:47, Jesus is talking about a "sinful" woman who has shown up at a dinner party Jesus was attending. He says: "…her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little." The wording here is a bit cumbersome, but what Jesus is saying is that those who demonstrate love are forgiven – that is, they are welcomed into the kingdom of God – while those who do not show love, are not welcomed.

The point of all these quotations (and these, of course, only scratch the surface) is to show that Jesus' vision of a Godly life was a life lived in unconditional love and service to others. In fact, such a life is the only Godly life, in Jesus' vision. To put it differently, a life lived with God is a life transformed into one of love, compassion, service to others, and humility. If one's life is not transformed in this way, one is not living a life with God. Indeed, such a person is living apart from God.

Having established, then, some of the basics of Jesus' vision for humanity, how does this factor in with the teachings of Paul and James? We have already looked at the common passages and the common interpretation of those passages. Now we turn to a more complete picture.

THE BIGGER PICTURE OF PAUL

In the letters of Paul, we have seen that he routinely talks of the importance of faith over works. However, we must understand what Paul was talking about when he spoke of "works." In most cases, the phrase used in the original Greek is actually something like "works of the law," or "deeds of custom." Paul was referring not to acts of kindness and goodness, but rather to Jewish custom and Mosaic Law. Paul's words were meant to convey his message – and that of Jesus – that Pharisaic adherence to strict religious traditions and laws was not the way to live a Godly life; instead, a Godly life was one lived in love, compassion, and selflessness. Paul sums this up well in his famous hymn from 1 Corinthians: "And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

In Galatians 5:6, Paul reveals, perhaps even more succinctly, his Christ-centered vision: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything;" (that is, your religious background is irrelevant); "the only thing that counts is faith working through love." Faith working through love. Not faith alone. But faith working through love. In other words, faith is inextricably tied to a life of love, compassion, and selflessness. That sort of life is faith. That sort of life is the life of Jesus. That sort of life is a Godly life.

Paul puts this into even better perspective in the book of Romans. In chapter 2, he states that there will be "glory and honor and peace" for those who "do good," but only "anguish and distress" for those who do evil. Notice Paul does not say good things will come to those who make the right profession of faith, and bad things will come to those who make the wrong profession of faith; what Paul says is that rewards come to those who do good, and punishment comes to those who do evil. It is about action, not about faith. As Paul states a few verses later: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (It is important to note that the Greek word "nomos," translated here as "law," is used in a different context from the "Mosaic law" or the law of the Pharisees, used in other spots. For Paul, Jesus' message was a new law unto itself, supplanting the old.)

Later in that same passage, Paul goes on to say something that seems quite revolutionary in light of common beliefs about the exclusivity of Christianity. He says:

When Gentiles, who do not possess the law [that is, the message of Jesus], do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

In other words, those who do good are doing the work of God – living the life of Jesus – even if they do not realize it, and even if they follow a different religious tradition (the "Gentiles" of Paul's letter to the Romans were references to the pagans of the Roman empire). Things like love, compassion, kindness, goodness, forgiveness, and selflessness are things that many people do naturally. For Paul, these things were evidence of God's existence in the natural world. All that was good came from God. As such, all who do good works will be judged accordingly by God. This is a profoundly revolutionary thing to say, and digs deep at the common refrain within many Christian churches that claim to corner the market on God. Paul is telling us that if you are doing good – if you are following your conscience and making positive change in the world – you are doing the work of God, and are therefore part of God's kingdom.

THE BIGGER PICTURE OF JAMES

In the passages that often sit at the heart of the debate on faith versus works, it is important – as it was with Paul – to understand what James meant when he talked about works. We have already seen that Paul's language, in the original Greek, was something akin to "works of the law" or "deeds of custom." Paul was talking about Pharisaic tradition. James, on the other hand, is talking about good deeds.

As such, when we look at the bigger picture of James, we see an ideology in line with both Paul and Jesus. In the opening chapter, James reveals this alignment perfectly: "Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above…" That is, everything good is of God – which is precisely what Paul and Jesus teach us. James even – apparently – quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans a few verses later, when he says, "…be doers of the word and not merely hearers…"

James tells us, quite bluntly, that Christians whose lives are not transformed by their faith like to "think they are religious," but, in fact, "their religion is worthless." What a wake-up call that should be to any Christian!

James ends his first chapter with perhaps the phrase that best sets forth the theme, or thesis, of his letter: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." In other words, religion is not about professions of faith; rather, religion is about transformation and subsequent action in the world. Christianity is about helping others. Christianity is a verb.

CHRISTIANITY IS A VERB

Jesus, and many of the writers of the New Testament, preached a revolutionary message – revolutionary in the context of Jewish custom and Roman beliefs. Worthless are the customs of the world, they said. Worthless are the pseudo-religious proclamations and professions of faith of institutional religion. Hopeless is a life of self-serving hypocrisy and hate-fueled rage. Meaningless is the pursuit of wealth and creature comforts. Useless is the lifestyle that watches out for number one.

Instead, they called us to exchange hate and derision for love and compassion, grudge-holding for mercy and forgiveness, selfish desire for selfless humility, the pursuit of wealth for the pursuit of generosity, antagonism for peace and tolerance, and self-centered concern for self-sacrificing acts of kindness.

To do these things is to be transformed by faith in God. To have faith in God is to do these things. Christianity is a verb. Religion is a verb. Any lifestyle, religious or otherwise, that involves this kind of action and this kind of transformation has hit the target squarely in the center, and has reached communion with the mystery of God. Likewise, any lifestyle, religious or otherwise, that does not involve this kind of action and transformation, has missed completely.

Peter and Paul - A Rift

Were Peter and Paul good friends who felt that they were working together in the spread of Jesus’s message, or were they bitter competitors who both felt that the other had the wrong idea?

While the first possibility is the one generally accepted by the faithful, and the second possibility is one pushed by those who either have a strong bias toward one theology over another or who have an agenda to discredit Christianity as a whole, the truth is probably somewhere closer to in between.

As I understand it from my years associated with the protestant Christian church, the general feeling among mainline Christians – if they even consider it at all (and most don’t) – is that Peter and Paul, like the other apostles, were generally united in their efforts to spread Jesus’s message. The evidence, however, is that most all of the primary apostles (that is, both members of Jesus’s inner circle, as well as early Christians like Paul who never actually met Jesus) had their own ideas about the meaning of Jesus’s life. By the 300’s C.E., Rome’s version of orthodox Christian theology had deftly woven these competing apostolic theologies together, set up Peter as the primary apostle on whose theology (that is, the Church’s interpretation of Peter’s theology) the Church’s dogma would follow, and had put together a nice little package of orthodox Christian writings. These writings, of course, came to be called the New Testament and were introduced to the faithful as the only divinely-inspired Christian texts. The countless myriad other Christian texts were first called heresy and greatly discouraged, and then, beginning in the 390’s C.E., were outlawed completely by Emperor Theodosius, who subsequently sent his lackeys around the empire to collect and destroy the banned texts.

It’s little wonder these non-canonical Christian texts were largely unknown until the 19th century, and many that we do have now (through various archaeological discoveries over the last hundred years) are incomplete and unreadable. Countless others, no doubt, have never been discovered. Yet, I’ve had traditionally-believing Christians in just the last six months point to the fact that these non-canonical texts are so rare and so few-and-far-between that it must be God’s way of showing that they are unreliable – if they were reliable, so the argument went, they’d still be around. They’re rare, of course, because the Church systematically destroyed them 1700 years ago! It had nothing to do with God!

But I digress...

Even in the canon, there is much evidence of the contention between Peter and Paul. Scholars and theologians generally portray Peter as the missionary to the Jews, while Paul is described as the missionary to the Gentiles. Paul himself paints it precisely this way in his letter to the Galatians. Indeed, it is widely understood that Paul was the one who first began spreading the “Good News” to the Gentiles in large numbers.

What could have led to such a dichotomous set-up? Why was Paul designated the Gentile missionary, while Peter was designated the Jewish missionary? If they were doing God’s work, shouldn’t they have been missionaries to everyone? Why the specialization?

Clues both in the canon and outside of the canon can help lead us toward an answer. In Galatians 2, Paul admonishes “Cephas” for not eating with the Gentiles. Galatians 2:11 reads: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.” He goes on to explain that Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles when his Jewish friends were around. Paul then transcribes a two or three paragraph admonishment that he supposedly gave to Peter in front of everyone, calling him to the carpet for not associating with Gentiles and even calling him a hypocrite and suggesting that he fooled Baranabas (Paul’s missionary companion) into doing the same thing.

Pretty harsh words for two men supposedly united in a cause.

Anyone familiar with Jewish eating customs will quickly be able to figure out the significance of this admonishing by Paul. Paul, who argued that Jesus’s message was for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, did not believe it was necessary to become a Jew, and live by Jewish law, in order to accept the message of Jesus and become a Christian. In other words, one did not have to live by the kosher rules of Jewish consumption in order to be a Christian. Peter, apparently, felt differently. When given the opportunity to eat with Gentile converts in front of his Jewish friends, he chose not to. He did not want to eat Gentile food, as it would have meant he was breaking kosher Jewish laws. Not only did he, apparently, not want to do this for himself, but he also did not want to offend other Jewish Christians. Paul clearly took issue with this, and upbraided him for it in public. For it to have been important enough to reference in one of his letters, it must have been a major issue between the two Christian leaders – one that everyone knew about.

Some scholars and theologians, in an effort to preserve the idea of Peter and Paul being united in the message of Christ, have attempted to suggest that the “Cephas” referred to in Paul’s letter is not Peter. If you read my previous blog, you will know that “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of Peter’s Aramaic nickname – Kepha. It is true that in most places in the New Testament, the writers referred to Peter as “Petros” – that is, they translated his name from Aramaic to Greek, rather than “Cephas.” But there are several places, Paul’s letter included, where the Greek transliteration was used instead, for whatever reason. It’s hard to imagine that there would have been two major Christian leaders named Cephas, particularly when you consider that “Cephas” is not a real name at all, but merely a transliteration of one language to another. Were there really two prominent Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in 1st century Palestine whose nicknames were “Kepha,” thus transliterating into the Greek “Cephas”? Probably not. Most every reputable scholar and theologian agree that Paul’s Cephas was, in fact, Simon Peter.

If we assume that Paul’s Cephas was Simon Peter, then we are faced with trying to understand the context of this apparently major disagreement the two had on the necessity of abiding by Jewish law and custom. Peter seems to have believed that Gentiles first needed to convert to Judaism – with all its kosher laws – before becoming Christian. Paul, on the other hand, makes it clear that we are saved through grace alone, and works (that is, sticking to kosher laws, etc.) are not necessary for salvation. In Galatians 2:16, during his admonishment to Peter, Paul says, “A man is not justified by observing the law [that is, the Jewish law], but by faith in Jesus Christ.”

The writer of James takes up this very issue when he argues that while we are saved through grace, a faith without works is dead. James, apparently, wanted to heal the long-standing rift created by the prominent disagreement between Peter and Paul, over whether religious laws had to be followed in order for salvation to be granted. James, then, argued that salvation comes through faith, but that without works, there can be no faith. A nice middle ground. But, as alluded to above, the very fact that James felt it necessary to address this issue so in-depth in his writings is evidence that it was a major issue in the early Christian church – and it’s an issue that can be traced to a fundamental disagreement between Peter and Paul – one that eventually led Paul to proclaim himself the missionary to the Gentiles, while Peter stuck with the Jews.

There are other clues to the rift in the New Testament as well. Luke, who wrote two volumes of Christian works – the first a narrative of Jesus’s life, and the second a narrative of the early days of Christianity – wrote many years after Paul’s death. His books, of course, are known to us as the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Luke seems to have been aware of Peter and Paul’s disagreement, and so, in an effort to show that Peter didn’t really think you had to be Jewish before you could be a Christian, he describes a scene in which Peter converts a Roman centurion – that is, a Gentile – to Christianity, after eating with him, no less. It starts with a story that is a Sunday School favorite – Peter dreams of a large sheet covered with a bunch of Gentile (that is, unclean) food. God instructs him to eat it. Peter is appalled and tells God he hasn’t ever eaten unclean food in his life. God then tells Peter that he shouldn’t call anything unclean that God has made pure. Peter then goes and eats with the Gentile centurion and converts him to Christianity. Clearly Luke was familiar with the kosher disagreement between Peter and Paul, and he attempts to “clear Peter’s name” by describing this scene in which God himself tells Peter that non-kosher is just fine. In my opinion – and in the opinion of many scholars – this is a rather blatant attempt by the writer of Acts to counter contemporary ideas that Peter had been a follower of Jewish law right up to his death.

Evidence of this rift between Peter and Paul is even more prominent in non-canonical writings. A set of writings attributed to a 1st century Christian leader named Clement includes a letter supposedly written by Peter to James – the same James who wrote about faith and works, referenced above. (The Clementine writings were supposedly written by the man who the Roman Catholic Church calls Pope Clement I, the fourth bishop of Rome, the third in succession after Peter, and an actual traveling companion of Peter. A whole series of blogs could be written about whether Clement actually authored this set of writings, or whether it was authored later and simply attributed to him, or whether it was based on some of his authentic writings – now lost – but was heavily changed and edited. After that, we could go into a discussion of whether Clement himself even existed, and whether he was, in fact, a bishop of Rome, and whether he was actually a companion of Peter. But this isn’t the place to delve into all that.)

In this letter supposedly transcribed by Clement, Peter rails against those who suggest that he teaches a “dissolution of the law.” He states, emphatically, that he never teaches for dissolution of Jewish law, “for to do so means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord.” He goes on to talk about how many Gentiles have rejected his “lawful” preaching and have preferred a “lawless and absurd doctrine” preached by “the man who is my enemy.” This is a clear and obvious reference to Paul.

In another Clementine writing, called the Clementine Homilies, there is a confrontation between Peter and a character named Simon Magus. Simon Magus appears in the New Testament, as well as in other non-canonical writings. He was a magician (that is, a pagan who worked wonders) in Rome, and some evidence even suggests that he was, in fact, a rival Christian leader. In one non-canonical work (The Acts of Peter, written in the 2nd century), Simon Magus and Peter engage in a long, drawn-out battle of magic. The winner (who, of course, is ultimately Peter) has the pleasure of getting all the masses to proclaim allegiance to his god. In the Clementine Homilies, however, Simon Magus is portrayed as rival Christian leader, and a rather lengthy passage is devoted to Peter’s derision for this pagan-in-sheep’s-clothing. Interestingly enough, even though the name used is that of Simon Magus, all the “facts” given about his life – and about which Peter speaks with contempt – are “facts” we know from the life of Paul. For instance, Peter says that Simon’s conversion on the road to Damascus was a sham, and that just because he saw a vision of Jesus decades after Jesus’s death, did not give him authority over people like Peter, who knew Jesus personally. Of course, it was Paul who was converted on the road to Damascus, and it was Paul who claimed authority through a vision he had of Jesus. Clearly, the writer of this non-canonical work was acutely aware of the rift between Peter and Paul, and used the character of Simon Magus to weakly mask the real source of Peter’s derision – that is, the apostle Paul.

Of course, just as we can’t read the New Testament as though it is a history book describing linear, historical events, we can’t read the Clementine writings, or any non-canonical work, as if they deal with literal events. However, we can glean from the non-canonical sources some insight into the mindset of the early Christians; as such, we can see that even in the 2nd century, perhaps as much as 100 years after Peter and Paul had both died, traditions surrounding their theological disagreements remained. If no such disagreement had ever existed, stories such as the ones I have outlined above would not have come into existence. It’s a matter of following the trail of canonical and non-canonical evidence to logical conclusions.

While mainstream Christian theology suggests that Peter and Paul were a united front in spreading the message of Christ, I believe the textual evidence points more toward Peter and Paul being as much competitors as they were comrades. In the book of 2 Peter, which has traditionally been credited to Peter himself, the writer, after a vitriolic exposition on the dangers of false prophets and a long, flowery sermon on the second coming of Jesus, encourages his readers to follow the teachings of “our dear brother Paul.” He goes on to admit that while Paul’s writings are sometimes confusing, they should be studied deeply and followed completely. Bearing in mind the likely reality that Peter and Paul had some major theological differences, what are the chances Peter himself actually wrote this passage? I’ll delve into that in my next blog.

Sinful Lifestyles

When we hear the phrase "sinful lifestyle," most of us immediately think of gays living together in homosexual bliss, or drug dealers selling crack to our children, or pedophiles eyeing up the kids on the playground.

I would certainly argue that the latter two qualify as sinful lifestyles – as would anyone with a sense of what is right and wrong. However, the former – gays actively acting on their sexual impulses – is probably the most common "sinful lifestyle" talked about in modern Christian circles.

I don't wish to use this essay to debate whether or not homosexuals are sinning when they act on their sexual impulses. I personally feel that there is no debate to be had. To suggest that a person's natural sexual orientation is somehow "sinful" or "wrong" is to debase the very essence of our inherent differences. Just because someone is not "like me," does not mean, by default, that there is anything wrong with them. I embrace differences in sexual orientation as a natural part of the human cycle, and I encourage anyone to embrace their own sexual preference without shame or guilt.

Instead, what I wish to debate is the inherent hypocrisy in the proclamation of the traditional Christian that homosexuals live in a "perpetual" state of sin through an active sinful lifestyle. This is one argument I hear frequently from anti-homosexual Christians when attempting to explain why homosexuality is a more significant sin than, say, lying to a co-worker.

"One lie can be forgiven through confession to God," the anti-homosexual traditionalist will say. "Gays, on the other hand, are living in a perpetual, daily state of sin."

For this reason, anti-homosexual traditionalists will argue that gays should renounce their lifestyles and be spiritually cleansed. After that, if they cannot live heterosexually, then they should live asexually. (Can you imagine anything more inhumane [and therefore ungodly] than asking someone to live a sexless life, against their natural impulse, simply because some capricious god demands it – a god, by the way, who made them that way?)

It's bad enough that anyone, for any reason, would suggest that gays in active relationships are living in perpetual sin – and, therefore, perpetual distance from God – but the proclamation is made all the worse by the complete hypocrisy inherent in such a belief.

Why is it hypocritical? For starters, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (as Paul tells us in Romans 3:23). Take care of the speck in your own eye before worrying about the plank in your neighbor's (as Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:42). Those are the typical arguments against hypocrisy on this subject, and ones which the anti-homosexual traditionalist would counter with the example I illustrated above (i.e., gays live in perpetual sin, whereas the rest of us just sin on a case-by-case basis and are therefore not involved in a "sinful" lifestyle).

But the hypocrisy in the "sinful lifestyle" proclamations go much deeper than simple "we're all sinners" arguments.

I'm talking, of course, about money and the pursuit of wealth and material possessions.

The very ideals upon which this country were founded include the pursuit of happiness. And for most Americans, the pursuit of happiness includes – almost exclusively for most – the pursuit of wealth and material comforts. We all want to have nice homes and nice clothes and nice cars. We want to eat at good restaurants, take vacations to swank destinations, and have the freedom to do what we want.

We want these things so badly in fact, that we spend money we don’t even have, building up debt. We believe that gathering material possessions around ourselves – like children burying themselves in the sand – will make us happy. Instead, like the child in the sand, it only blurs our vision. It keeps our eyes off the real path of happiness – which is inside of ourselves, not arbitrarily stuck inside some material item, available to us if only we can get our hands on it.

But I digress.

Our very country's economic structure is based on the pursuit of wealth. We want more, more, more, more, more. And for most of us, the more we have, the more we spend. We put money away in IRA's, 401K's, and other investments in order to build up a nice "nest egg" for ourselves, so we can provide for ourselves in retirement and have financial freedom.

I saw a commercial yesterday on CNN for investing in gold. "PROTECT YOUR WEALTH," the advertisement ran, "IN THESE UNCERTAIN ECONOMIC TIMES!" We're all concerned about our wealth, about our stuff, about what we're going to be able to have and not have when we get older.

Is this pursuit of wealth, this pursuit of material possessions and comforts, a Christ-like objective? Let's look at what Jesus had to say on the subject.

Luke 6:20 – "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

Matthew 6:19-20a – "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven."

This passage goes on to say, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." And later, still in the same passage, Jesus says, "You cannot serve both God and money."

Jesus ends this teaching on the pursuit of wealth with the following: "So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things."

In Luke's version of the same story, he adds the following: "The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus." The Pharisees – the arch villains of the Jesus story – are the ones who love money.

Pretty strong words there from Jesus and his biographers against the pursuit of wealth.

One of the most famous of Jesus's actions, as described in the gospels, is when Jesus runs the "moneychangers" out of the temple. In Matthew's version of the event, Jesus says that these enterprising businessmen were turning the temple into a "den of robbers." Now why would he say that? He was quoting the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, but why did he choose that phrase? He was mad that they were buying and selling in the temple, but why did that necessarily mean they were they turning the temple into a "den of robbers"? Clearly Jesus didn’t have much regard for "men of business." The passage in Jeremiah that Jesus quoted was referring to people who deal in the sinful ways of the world, then come into the temple and pretend that everything is all right. In Jeremiah, God says these people are turning the temple into a "den of robbers." So when Jesus called the moneychangers the same thing, he was basically saying that their "lifestyle" was sinful and worldly and had no place before God.

Let's look at some other things Jesus had to say about money and wealth.

Mark 4:19 – "But the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful."

Mark 12:43-44 – "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Luke 18:25 – "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The depravity of money, the pursuit of wealth, and the thirst for material possessions is a common theme in Jesus's teachings. In fact, it was one of his favorite subjects.

Does it not seem clear that living a life of pursuing wealth is, in fact, a "sinful lifestyle," by the standards of Jesus?

And it doesn't stop there. The early Christian teachers spoke out against the pursuit of wealth too.

1 Timothy 6:9 – People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.

1 Timothy 1:2-3 – Now the overseer must be above reproach...not a lover of money.

James 1:11 – For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

James 5:1-3a – Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.

Revelation 3:17 – You say, "I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing." But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

In addition to these strong words against money and wealth, recall that in Acts, Luke describes the early Christian communities as living together with a basically Socialist economic structure, distributing their earnings equally among all the members. Luke goes on to tell the story of a man and his wife who sold a plot of land and then hid the earnings from the other members. Peter, speaking with the authority of God, rebukes the pair for what they did, and the man dies, presumably struck down by God. Later, Peter tests the wife, and when she lies about the profits too, God strikes her down as well.

And none of this speaks at all of the numerous Old Testament teachings against the dangers of money. I'll quote only one:

Proverbs 28:20 – A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.

In the New International Version of the bible, the word "money" is used 127 times. "Wealth" and "wealthy" appear 126 times. The phrase "rich man" appears 22 times.

The bible is rife with stories of God, Jesus, the prophets, and the early Christian leaders looking quite harshly upon the pursuit of wealth and material possessions. Next to loving and serving God, it may be the most frequent teaching of the bible!

And yet we ignore it! Completely!

In this sense, I believe all Christians – progressive or otherwise – are hypocritical. The very nature of our culture stands in direct contrast to a major biblical teaching. We can't be following Christ's example, and living lives in pursuit of wealth. The two are mutually at odds with one another. You can't serve both God and money.

Of course, Jesus, and those who wrote the bible, were living in a completely different time period. Outside of joining a convent or a monastery, it's not reasonable, in our society, to expect someone to give up all worldly pursuits and live a Christ-centered life. We have to save for retirement, we have to have money to buy a house, transportation, clothes, and food. And, as human beings, I think most agree that we should be entitled to eat at a restaurant now and then, go see a movie, or go to Disney World.

Make no mistake, I'm not arguing for an ascetic lifestyle.

What I am arguing is that unless you are an ascetic, you are living a "sinful lifestyle" by the standards of Jesus and the bible as a whole.

This is one of the primary reasons I am not a bible literalist, nor a believer in the ultimate "authority" of the bible. As I've illustrated above, it is absurd to assume that the writings and beliefs of an ancient culture can be completely relevant to modern society. We have no choice but to pick and choose what fits and what does not fit.

And everyone does this.

Including the anti-homosexual traditionalist.

The same evangelical Christians who proclaim to the world the depravity and sinfulness of the homosexual lifestyle, will then turn around and drive home in their leather interior SUV to their 2-story house in suburbia, where they will entertain guests on the weekend with fine food and drinks, watch the game on their flat panel TV's, pay $100 a month for digital cable and DVR, install a pool when they get that big bonus check, and engage in an unabashed orgy of materialism every December 25th (in honor of the man who said "Store not for yourselves treasures on earth"!!!).

And as if that's not hypocritical enough, they will, in fact, proclaim that their material wealth is a blessing from God for their piety!

Not only did Jesus never promise blessings of great worldly wealth for great piety, but he specifically said to give up everything and follow him! Store not for yourselves treasures on earth! The deceitfulness of wealth! Blessed are the poor! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God!

Many evangelicals not only don't follow Jesus's teachings, they do precisely the opposite of what he taught. It would be like arguing that, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Blessed are the arrogant." Of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort – in fact, he said precisely the opposite – "Blessed are the meek."

Finally, they cap off the hypocrisy of their sinful lifestyles by proclaiming the sinful lifestyles of homosexuals. Remember the classic argument I mentioned above – "Gays have a sinful lifestyle because they are living in a perpetual, daily state of sin." As if the money-grubbing capitalistic evangelical is not living in an equal state of daily sin!

And remember the number of teachings on the evil of the pursuit of money? 275 references in the bible to money, wealth, or rich men alone. As I said above, money was one of Jesus's favorite teachings. Guess how many times he taught against homosexuality?

Exactly zero.

But all this seems lost on the anti-homosexual traditionalist. I wish that essays such as this would make a difference, now and then, in the minds of an evangelical or two. Maybe stop them in their tracks, make them re-evaluate their perspective.

But it won't happen.

As Neil Peart tells us in the lyrics to Peaceable Kingdom: "The ones we wish would listen are never going to hear."