But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ⁸ This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

⁹ But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. ¹⁰ Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. ¹¹ You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

Titus 3:4-11

This passage in Titus is an interesting one, especially when it comes to 3:10,

“Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.”

The issue with this verse is that it is the very thing used to divide one against the other. If you have two disagreeing sides which one claims this as their right?

What tends to get missed when people cite this verse as a way of protecting their view against those who disagree with them is the way the letter to Titus is collapsing the foundation of division. Even in chapter 3 we see the premise beginning with the notion of submission. Submission to the rulers. Why? Because of what “the kindness and love of God our Savior” means for us. Before we were called out from our former life and set apart to live in the way of the kingdom of God we were once “foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.” Here we need to be careful not to rush forward and apply this as a universal statement about how indiviual salvation works. This is describing a community who’s story reflects a specific context. This is speaking about a community set apart to image the kingdom of God in the time and place where they find themselves. Thus what we get is a portrait of a divided people. How can they be image bearers if they are fighting with one another?

This is where chapter 2:1 says, “You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine.” This is connected to chapter 1:9 where it says to hold firmly “to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

So what is this sound doctrine? It is the trustworthy message. What is the trustworthy message? That is outlined in 1:1-4, cited as the hope of Jesus and His work which is anchored in the promise of eternal life (which they would understand as the restoration of the whole creation). This is what is said to be the the knowledge that leads to godliness, or knowledge that invites us to participate in the kingdom of God in Christ as ones who bear the image of God through Christlikeness (based on what Christ has done for us). This is what shapes chapter 2 as the collapsing of these divisions, speaking to older men, older women, younger children, slaves ect and calling all to follow in the way of Christ, to live in relationship to others in the same way that Christ lived in relationship to us- by serving one another. This is the connection between the sound doctrine (the work of Jesus and the hope it represents) and the fact that this doctrine is meant to actually call us to live in the Kingdom not opposed to it.

Which or course is where we come back around to the tension inherent within this idea of a unified community. If the context of this community in Titus is division between the circumcised and uncircumcised (1:10), as is the conflict in most of the NT, then this letter is a call to bring both Jew and Gentile together over and against the question of whether one needs to become Jewish to follow Christ. As Paul says elsewhere, the Law (circumcision) is important to those under it, but not necessary to those not under it because the whole point of the Law is to point to the story of Gods faithfulness (now made known and fulfilled in Christ) which calls us to faithfulness. This circumcision is not the point, living in the kingdom as faithful participants trusting in the promise of Gods faithfulness to the covenant is.

So how do we navigate 3:9? Seems to me that the inference there is that those who are taking away the hope of Christs work by denying others the right to free participation in the kingdom is the problem. How can others freely participate in the kingdom of they see a community of christ followers denying their own community the right to free participation. If this is the whole point of the “right doctrine” then it is this sort of division that needs to be left behind

Acts 15:10-11
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Referring to this passage Scott McKnight suggests that,
“The quest in the early church was for a “fellowship of differents,” that is, of people who are not the same but who transcend and celebrate differences by fellowship in Christ (McKnight, A Fellowship of Differents).”

He goes on to say that,
“We are looking here at the single most significant point of contention in the first generation of the church: Do gentile believers in Jesus observe the Torah as do the Jewish believers? Their Bible and Paul’s stated explicitly that circumcision was the covenant requirement for all, including gentiles, and it was an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:1–14). Furthermore, full converts (proselytes) to Judaism were required to be circumcised, so a clear precedent was already at work. Yet, in neither of the gentile conversion stories told by Luke, the eunuch in Acts 8 and Cornelius in Acts 10, was circumcision required. Think of circumcision as the single act that demonstrated a full commitment. The rite signaled to the Jewish community one’s full commitment to Torah observance and that one had crossed the threshold out of paganism into Judaism.”

This underscores what we find in nearly the entirety of the NT. This is the question that forms the central concerns of its writers and figures. Here he outlines the big 3:

“First, Peter. He reminds them of his experience of being the first to gospel the gentiles with Cornelius where he and those who turned to Jesus received the Spirit and God “purified their hearts by faith” (15:9), which means without circumcision. Peter pushes even harder against the Pharisee Christian position by stating that none of them had been able to bear the requirements to follow the law of Moses, so why ask the gentile converts to attempt it (15:10). I consider this statement one of the most radical statements one can find in the entire New Testament. Salvation, he tells the congress, is “through the grace of our Lord Jesus” (15:11). His answer then to the Pharisee Christians is “No!”

Second, Barnabas and Paul (notice the order) must have made quite an impression because Luke says “the whole assembly became silent,” which is often language used when listening to powerful orators (15:12). In this case, the preeminent troublemakers! They told stories about “signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12). Their voice is reduced to one verse.

Third, James, the brother of Jesus and the major leader of the church in Jerusalem. Noticeably, he affirms Simon (Peter), not Barnabas and Paul, whom God used first to gospel the gentiles (15:14). Rhetorically it appears he wants to affirm (1) the gentile mission, (2) Peter as the fountain of that mission, and therefore (3) Paul as simply one who continued that divine initiative. James, too, knows like modern evangelicals that he needs some biblical support, so he appeals to Amos 9:11–12’s explicit prediction that in the future God would save gentiles (Acts 15:15–18).”

He then poses an interesting question regarding Jamss cutting through the middle of disputes between Peter and Paul.
“Two sides are in dispute: Paul claims total freedom from the law, and the Pharisee believers claim the necessity of law observance. James proposes (1) to “not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19) and (2) proposes that they be required to observe what gentiles who lived in the land of Israel were to observe. Either James is appealing here to Leviticus 17:8–14, which is built on Genesis 9:4–6, or he is pushing in various ways against idolatry (Gaventa, Acts, 221–224).”

I have long thought that this is why James’ letter appears so distinct, and perhaps why I was once resisted I history. Part of what opens up James for me is actually seeing his use of the Genesis language, and so it’s interesting to consider his letter in line with the literary structure of leviticus if this theory is correct. I suspect that he is actually using that to speak to the idolatry of their day and that his highly considered jewishness sometimes gets missed in light of later writers seeing him in opposition to Paul.

So much division in the church seems to come down to disagreements on the atonement- what it is, how it works, what it says about God, humanity and creation. Which is ironic given that at the heart of atonement is the healing of divisions, the at one withness (or mentness) of God’s work in the created order.

Something I have come to be compelled by over the years- atonement theories are simply language, not facts. It is langauge used to help us make sense of something we otherwise cannot understand.

What’s important to understand then about language is that language is rooted in both time and place. Language expresses itself differently in different times and places. This does not mean the absence of Truth, nor that Truth changes and is contradictory. It simply means that language is limited in its expression and that to do the work of hearing and challenging one another, and likewise allowing the other to hear and challenge us, involves a cross cultural movement into a different space and time. This is equally true for approaching the language that we encounter in Scripture- this is a cross cultural movement, a learning to speak a different language and thus allowing this to shed light on our own.

It is when we assume that our language has the power to capture the totality of Truth in our time and place that atonement theories begin to divide, and actually take us further from Truth. In Truth, the goal of Christian formation should follow the same pattern that we find in the book of Deuteronomy, where we find a later generation of people in their time and place looking back at a previous generation in their time and place and calling them to consider the langauge (the story) of the generation previous to them. In Deuteronomy the call is to locate within these different times and places the shared experience of Sinai, the place where God in Spirit, according to the story, came down the mountain and entered human history. Thus we find Deuteronomy calling a people far removed from this moment to place themsleves at Sinai while asking what this means for them in their time and place. This becomes the expectation of the Spirits continued dwelling in their midst, calling them to find a language that is able to express how this Truth speaks to the uniqueness of their experiences.

In Jesus we find much the same. Jesus’ story is patterned after Sinai, where God comes down the mountain to break into human history and dwell with His creation. Through this comes the Spirit that binds us to this shared story across time and place. Thus when it comes to thinking about atonement, we should expect our langauge to be different. It is okay for certain theories to be challenged and for us to employ new langauge in ways that address our present questions and concerns and awareness. What’s important though, and what Christmas is all about, is to learn what it is to know and to remember and to participate in the shared story. To learn how to place oursleves in that story and to allow that story to shape our language in our time and place accordingly. This is what it means to live in the expectation of the Spirits continued dwelling in our midst. This is how Jews understood the role or the Torah. This is how Jesus takes the shape of Torah. This is how we heal the divisions removed as we are from the others story and bound as we are to our own. To be shaped by a story external to our conflicts is precisely where and how the Spirit moves by way of langauge. If God did indeed break into history we should expect that such a God would be expressed in the Finiteness of our language in time and place. We should also expect that this Finiteness is the very thing that calls us to open our eyes to the other, to move across cultures and into the beauty and diversity of the human experience without fear that Truth will somehow be sacrificed along the way. Truth was sacrificed in fact for this very purpose, so that we might be free to participate in this very way.

Philippians 4:4-7
4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

In Scott McKnight’s transformative book on Paul’s letter to the Romans (Reading Romans Backwards) he makes the case that misreadings of the text flow from misunderstanding the context and that the best way to locate the context is to read I backwards. It’s a fascinating practice that really does reformulate the letters concern as it allows us to gain a better perspective on who Paul is speaking ro and why.

In his new commentary on Philippians he applies the same approach, beginning with chapter 4 before moving forward through chapters 1-3. One of the most oft cited passages in the letter comes from chapter 4 and relates to thanksgiving, or more importantly having a posture of thankfulness.

Right before this passage we find an important section of 2 (or 3) verses that often get bypassed on our way to recontextualixing this passage as a word for us today.

2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Here we find the context for the letters emphasis on unity in Christ. Two women leaders (don’t let this fact run by top quickly either) are at odds and Paul is making a plea to this community. “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends!” (Vs 1) Why? So that they might “help these women”. Doesn’t get more particular, personal and pointed then this.

This frames the ensuing words then regarding thanksgiving not as an inward looking sentiment but rather outwards as a witness which holds the power to heal the divisions in our midst. How easy it is to read this letter as one from Paul to me. How much more power do these words hold when seen as a letter calling a community to live for the sake of another. Thanksgiving is not merely gratitude I express regarding what Christ has done for me but the very real and transformative work of the spirit healing the impossible divides that emerge from our attempts to make sense of this life together with all it messiness and uncertainty. And if Philippians has its way with this ancient community it would find them seeking this first and foremost at the table where Christ’s own witness works to heal the divide in the whole of creation

Happy Thanksgiving. May we find a peace that transcends all understanding in this simple and necessary truth.

“In the ancient world, to say Jesus is Lord is to say that Ceasar is not… make no mistake, this was a revolution. Exchanging the love of power for the power of Christ’s love,”

• N.T. Wright

Wright supplemts this with an additional question: who or what is Caesar.
In one sense Caesar is the idea of the Powers of Sin and Death, something the ancients saw to represent a very real agency of Evil that exists and rules in this world.

In another sense Caesar is the idea of Empire, giving the language of Evil a real historical presence in the oppression of others.

In another sense still Caesar is the system. These systems actualize the oppressive nature of Evil and Empire in our world as enslavement to these systemic realities.

In another sense yet Caesar is all of us. It is in this sense that the love of Christ then judges both the oppressed and the oppressor alike. It judges the oppressor, making the claim that we are either participating in the reality of Empire and demonstrating a love of power, or we are participating in the new reality of Christ’s reign by demonstrating Christ’s love. And it judges the oppressed, making the claim that the hope of Christ is the faithfulness of Christ to Gods promise to make what is wrong in this world right and, extending this with the call to free participation in the Kingdom of God’s love for the sick, the lowly, the marginalized, the widow, the orphan, and the sinner.

In both cases what binds us to Empire is the systems which enslave us to one reality or another. If the Gospel is simply this- christ has defeated the Powers that hold creation enslaved, ascended to the throne, and established His rule of love in the whole of creation thus making all things new- then what we have is the two sided nature of this judgment followed by the call to participate in the new reality Christ has brought about in and for the world. To hear this from the perspective of the oppressed is to hear that the Powers which oppress have been defeated. Thus to participate in the old reality is to store up the wrath poured out on Evil for ourselves. To hear this as the oppressed is to hear that the Powers which oppress have been defeated and we are free to participate in the new, liberated reality. Thus to participate in the new reality Christ’s work has established in and for the world is to experience the hope that Christ has in fact done what He said He did in and for the world.

But here is the kicker. If Ceasar is indeed all of us then what this means is that the truth of the Gospel always leads us to the call to participation. To be liberated (the Exodus) brings us to Sinai. Christ has liberated the whole of creation and brings us all to Golgotha. Thus the power of Christ’s love becomes our judgment. To be liberated from the Powers, from Empire, means to be freed to be a people in and for the world. To be image bearers of the true revealed name of God in Christ. In this way Christ’s message intersects with the totality of our lives as we see these two realities existing side by side, one that has been and is being defeated and one that has been and is being made new.

It is for this reason that the connecting point between us and the Empire in this multifaceted use of Caesar is in fact the systems themselves. The lie of the Powers at the top of this list rests in the claim that we are all Evil. From this flows every justification for the oppression of the other, as the only way to not be Evil is to hold power over the other and make them the enemy of our righteous status. The truth of Christ is that we are made in God’s image. The Kingdom of Christ flips the love of Power on its head by reversing the trajectory- we are all made in the image of God, therefore the enemy is Power itself. The beauty of the great reversal is that God’s new creation project begins with the call to free participation in building a Kingdom of love. But here is the thing- it is Christ’s work that has freed us to do so by defeating the Powers that hold this creation enslaved. Thus the call to participate must attend to and do the work of dismantling the systems that proclaim the lie rather than the truth. To say Jesus is Lord is to say Caesar is not, and this claim bears the statement that we are in fact image bearers called to image the love of Christ in and for the world.

I just finished reading this book (The Journey of Humanity: The Origins of Wealth and Inequality by Oded Galor). Lots of interesting ideas in it to ponder.

One interesting idea that it raises has to do with the tendency to look at the journey of humanity as a progression from less prosperity to more prosperity. This is the modern myth, the modern creation story so to speak. And yet there are so many things that push back on such a reading of human history. In truth what we find is a history of cyclical formations that, while bringing with it things associated with greater prosperity (longer life spans for example, or technical advancement) speak to a pattern of continued polarities rather than a progressive evolution. These polarities are the competing realities of growth and inequality. The book suggests that there exists a narrow window of a confluence of factors that we can locate where examples of unencumbered prosperity genuinely exist, and it is these particular moments that can shed light on ways to perhaps tackle the cyclical problem that the journey of humanity represents.

Paired with this is the idea noted by the author that, while we might be tempted to think that global events/disasters play the greatest factor in human prosperity and development, this isn’t actually the case. Diversity plays the biggest role. But here in lies the perpetual problem for the modern myth. Too much diversity or too little diversity inhibits true prosperity (which the author takes the time to define as uninhibited progress that happens without detriment to people). Here in lies a dilemma- both colonialism and globalism reflect the same problem from different sides of the scale.

The book doesn’t spend much time on this, but if I would press this idea further I would narrow in on the relationship between religous expression and diversity. When we speak of diversity what we are generally speaking of is religious expression. This is the singular driving force of cultural expression. The problem? The modern myth depends on both upholding this reality (celebrating religious diversity) while subduing it (making it subservient to a secularity that runs contrary to religious expression). This is why wealth and inequality remains far more the rule than the anomaly. Hitting that perfect window of diversity means pushing to one side or the other, which ironically means that the most important factor (religious diversity) is the very thing that progress is desperate to oppose.

A couple observations on that front:

1. Secularity, or the modern myth, can never be truly diverse because it must resist the primary means of diversity- religion. This is what we find in globalism
2. At the same time certain religious expressions fight against diversity and can never truly speak to prosperity (in its truest sense). An example of this would be colonialism attaching itself to christianity.
3. This is where I find something like Tolkiens notion of the true myth enticing and compelling. True prosperity does demand a value system, meaning a sense of Truth that is able to bind diversity together. For me this is Christ, not as a figure or system opposed to religious diversity but as one that gives us a means of making sense of it. True prosperity also demands that we recognize that this Truth expresses itself through different forms and languages. Thus Christ can play through and in different religious systems and Tradtions by way of a diversity of language

Of course these two ideas express a nice thought but are difficult to uphold. But here is the thing- secularity can’t uphold it because the modern myth believes it can foster diversity by doing away with its primary source. For me this means that God remains the most compelling answer to the possibility of prosperity and diversity. But God must have a true expression at the same time, even as this gets expressed within the language of diversity. That is the point where I would appeal to christ as a potential unifying point within the God-Human-Creation story

An artiicle on the dangers of ideology and learning to think well.

“We live in an age of ideology. The world is complex and hard to understand, so we look for a theory that can help make sense of things. This is understandable. Throughout history, people made sense of the world through cultural and religious traditions. But as the world has become simultaneously more connected and more secular, as our awareness of complexity has increased while religious and cultural traditions have weakened, people now exist with a heightened sense of uncertainty. Many of us are unmoored, finding it harder to make sense of the world—and making it more attractive to latch on to simple explanations. This need, along with several other influences, has created the conditions for increased ideological thinking and an inability to consider different perspectives…

What is ideology and what are its sources? Ideology is not merely a set of ideas or principles that one believes in. We all have that to some extent, and it is essential to live one’s life. By ideology I mean a theory that purports to explain reality. One way to understand it is: Ideology is the opposite of philosophy… Human beings don’t like complexity, and ideology provides the comfort of a sure answer.

Philosophy—philo-sophos—is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth.

Here I am addressing Christianity, though I think it applies equally to Judaism, religion does not claim to explain everything. God creates and calls us to participate in, and complete creation. We have to figure things out on our own. We have to use our intellects to engage in philosophical and scientific discovery. There is no full solution to the problem of life… properly understood and practiced, religion is not ideology, because by its very nature it is open to revelation. Religion is a simple response to reality. It may not be correct, but like philosophy, religion is a response to something outside itself, whereas ideology is a closed system.”

On our very first phone call Jen and I bonded over Philipp Yanceys “What’s So Amazing About Grace”. When she asked me who else I liked to read I mentioned this book that I was currently devouring. She went and bought a copy so that we could read it together and so that she could get to know me better.

I still deeply appreciate that moment. I hope that it shed light on my appreciation for this spiritual giant and his writings.

Rest well good and faithful servant
“At its heart most theology, like most fiction, is essentially autobiographical.”

“Religion as a word points to that area of human experience where in one way or another man comes upon mystery as a summons to pilgrimage: where he senses meanings no less overwhelming because they can be only hinted at in myth and ritual, where he glimpses a destination that he can never know fully until he reaches it.”

“The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the worlds deep hunger meet.”

I’ve been asked a few times in groups I’m a part of and in person and elsewhere what my theological association/disposition is. My answer is often a mesh of Traditions. However, one leading answer I often give is that I adhere to a form of covenant theology. Just not the sort of covenant theology you find in “lordship” or calvinst versions.

I worship in a denomination called the Evangelical Covenant Church, and it is a good example of a Tradition that fits within the Protestant/Reformed umbrella but with a need and a desire to be constantly reforming. To be on the look out for the dangerous and corruptible parts within the larger umbrella and address it within the denomination. They did this initially by splitting off from Lutheranism in favor of reclaiming a more robust theology of the spirit, and also by stripping much of the doctrine and replacing it with central “affirmations” that leave plenty of room for diversity, disagreement and discussion within the congregations. It is a pretty wonderful thing from my experience.

However, what I really wanted to say was that when I say covenant theology I mean something more like narrative theology in this article here. The theologian cited (Emil Brunner) is another good example of someone who falls under the Reformed umbrella while also being willing to hold it to the fire of ongoing reform.

“Doctrines are secondary to the story; they cannot replace it. They are judged by their adequacy to the story—their ability to draw out and express faithfully the character of God as revealed by the story. But the story is primary; the doctrines are secondary and that means always revisable in light of a new and better understanding of the import of the story.”

“The only way to interpret “God is love” is to look at the biblical story that reveals God’s character through his actions.”

“Narrative theology has no need of “biblical inerrancy;” perfection with respect to purpose is sufficient to express biblical accuracy and authority. It is in and through the story that we meet God, especially in Jesus Christ. The Bible is the medium, the instrument, the indispensable witness to Jesus Christ. It is our life-changing meeting with him through the Bible’s Christ-centered story that elevates the Bible over other books. We do not believe in and trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior because of our belief in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because it is the unique instrument and witness of our meeting with him.”

I always love the Office of Rabbi Sacks, but every once in a while an episode hits extra hard. This is one case.

The episode (which is also available in text form in the link) is talking about the Law within Judaism, and more specifically this verse:
Be very vigilant to keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and the testimonies and decrees with which He has charged you. Do what is right and what is good in the Lord’s eyes, so that it may go well with you, and you may go in and take possession of the good land that the Lord swore to your ancestors to give you.
– Deut. 6:17-18

He starts by focusing on Rashi’s analysis, saying,

“The difficulty is obvious. The preceding verse makes reference to commandments, testimonies, and decrees. This, on the face of it, is the whole of Judaism as far as conduct is concerned. What then is meant by the phrase “the right and the good” that is not already included within the previous verse?

Rashi says it refers to “compromise (that is, not strictly insisting on your rights) and action within or beyond the letter of the law (lifnim mi-shurat ha-din).” The law, as it were, lays down a minimum threshold: this we must do. But the moral life aspires to more than simply doing what we must.[1] The people who most impress us with their goodness and rightness are not merely people who keep the law. The saints and heroes of the moral life go beyond. They do more than they are commanded. They go the extra mile. That, according to Rashi, is what the Torah means by “the right and the good.”

He then contrasts this with another point of perspective (Ramban) writing that,
“the right and the good refer to a higher standard than the law strictly requires. It seems as if Ramban is telling us that there are aspects of the moral life that are not caught by the concept of law at all. That is what he means by saying “It is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man’s conduct with his neighbours and friends.”

Law is about universals, principles that apply in all places and times: Do not murder. Do not rob. Do not steal. Do not lie. Yet there are important features of the moral life that are not universal at all. They have to do with specific circumstances and the way we respond to them.”

Here is the point that stuck out for me. The “Law”, in the Jewish sense, is about universals. But “Morality is about persons, and no two persons are alike…morality is not just a set of rules, even a code as elaborate as the 613 commands and their rabbinic extensions. It is also about the way we respond to people as individuals.”

He goes on to say this:
“This too is the difference between the God of Aristotle and the God of Abraham. Aristotle thought that God knew only universals not particulars. This is the God of science, of the Enlightenment, of Spinoza. The God of Abraham is the God who relates to us in our singularity, in what makes us different from others as well as what makes us the same.

This ultimately is the difference between the two great principles of Judaic ethics: justice and love. Justice is universal. It treats all people alike, rich and poor, powerful and powerless, making no distinctions on the basis of colour or class. But love is particular… that is what the Torah means when it speaks of “the right and the good” over and above the commandments, statutes, and testimonies.”

The emphasis here is on the collision of universal truths and the lived in reality of the particulars of love. It is when Law is reformulated as dogma that love is lost and relegated to the periphery of human relationship and human expeience, especially when it comes to awareness of the oppressed-oppressor paradigm.

This is, at least in part, what was going on at the time of Christ. Law as a formative force in the life of Judaism, for close readers of the Jewish texts, sits in conversation with their ongoing relationship to the world around them. it is revealing the way of love and as such love necessarily challenges the Law to be conformed to human experience and human relationship. You see this expressing itself all over the biblical narrative.

Continually though they (Israel) faced the temptation to take love and turn it into dogma and have to be challenged, rebuked, reformed in the way they are called to be formed by the Law according to the particularities of love. When we get to second temple Judaism in the time of Jesus, what we find is a faithful people who have grown the universals of the Law into a grandiose set of dogma. Jesus doesn’t come to abolish the Law in this sense, but rather to conform it to the original guiding principle of love and its particulars. To strip away the penchant for dogma being used to exclude and to reawaken loves ability to form us to the universal principles of the revealed Law.

We face the same challenges and have the same need for this message today