Confessions of A Christian
2 Peter 1:3-11
“Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”
This short confessional statement makes it clear that the realization that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior produces a life change. So when this confession is made, what does it mean? Most Christians hear these words so often that we can repeat them without considering their implications. As a result, I am going to attempt to define each of these loaded terms with regard to their Biblical context and describe which aspects we as a culture tend to omit or elaborate.
Jesus: This historical figure was a thoroughly Jewish carpenter turned itinerant preacher. He couched his teaching in language that would speak deeply into the cultural context of the Jews and the Romans.
Christ: Known in Hebrew as Messiah, this concept referred specifically to the Jewish expectation of a coming king from the lineage of David who would deliver Israel and fulfill the promises of the prophets.
Lord: This is a translation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton for the name of God, YHWH. Caesar also declared himself to be divine by assuming the title “Lord.” The assertion that Jesus is Lord is a simultaneous association with YHWH as well as a repudiation of Caesar’s similar claim. That means that this confession is necessarily exclusive.
Savior: Jesus’ divine, perfect nature allows Him to insert himself in our place, appeasing the requirements of the Law and God’s holiness, thereby reestablishing the relationship between God and man.
While the bounds of orthodoxy are found in this confession, we as Western Christians have a tendency to render “Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior” instead as “Jesus as my personal Savior.” The exclusion of “Christ” denies the connection of the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament with the Old Testament expectation in the fulfillment of God’s promises. The exclusion of “Lord” not only denies the divinity of Jesus, but also denies the exclusivity of Christianity. In other words, if Jesus is Lord, no one else is. If he is not Lord, what makes him any more significant than Muhammad, Buddha, or Vishnu? Now it is certainly true that some omit these words unintentionally, attributing the full force of these terms to Jesus but neglecting the phrases themselves. I would encourage any of you in this camp to add this language to your proclamation about Jesus, recognizing that it is deeply rooted in a Christian understanding about Him. To those of you who intentionally omit these phrases and the full force of what they communicate, I would challenge you to look again at the Biblical record and see how these principles run throughout the Old Testament and New.
Rather sneakily different is the addition of the individual into the statement. We move from a corporate confession of which I am a member (our), to an individualistic faith (my personal). This addition is every bit as damaging to Christian faith as the other subtractions because it denies the work of God reconnecting us to one another as well as Himself. Many of us (myself included) have been badly hurt by the Western ideal of individual merit. We are taught that “I earn my right to be loved by God and others.” However, the Christian faith is an affront to that very mentality. One of the most powerful aspects of Christianity is our connectedness to a community that is committed to God’s mission. We confess together that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, recognizing that I am included as an individual, but that I am also part of a whole. I would encourage those of you out there as badly wounded as I have been by the self-reliance our culture preaches to take hold of the full force of the promise God gives us through Jesus, which is that you are part of a community through no effort of your own. I would challenge those of you who would isolate yourselves in your faith that if you really believe that Jesus is the Christ, Lord, and Savior, you would willingly want to open yourself up to the community of believers.
33 Responses
to “Confessions of A Christian”
1 Trackback(s)
- May 6, 2008: Counting Beans, Homes, and Ways « Losing My Religion
Posts
“Lord: This is a translation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton for the name of God, YHWH. Caesar also declared himself to be divine by assuming the title “Lord.” The assertion that Jesus is Lord is a simultaneous association with YHWH as well as a repudiation of Caesar’s similar claim. That means that this confession is necessarily exclusive.” (Mike)
There is a lot being said here about Jesus as Lord – which I am willing to address.
(a) The comparison with Caesar is an obvious one – concerning kingdoms and allegiance. I will give you that much concerning the term ‘Lord’.
(b) As for ‘Lord’ meaning God (the ineffable name) – well – I have to disagree. Bare with me on some explaining.
“by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (2 Petra 1:1)
“Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Petra 1:2)
Depends how we link the words in both of these sentences – this use of kurios/Lord in Peter’s letter. Verse 1 and verse 2 actually do show Peter separates God from the Jesus. In verse 1 Jesus is a ‘savior’ (God is distinct) and in verse 2 Jesus is called ‘Lord’ – even apart from God. I think Peter is making a clear cut distinction between who Jesus is and who God is. Here is my next proof text:
“For when He received honor and glory from God the Father…” (2 Petra 1:17)
Jesus is acknowledged by God the Father and he does this ‘not of his own will’. Peter is quick to point that out within this letter – God bestows this upon Jesus – Jesus ‘receives’ it.
So if Jesus is ‘Lord and Savior’ – he is because God allows such an anointing.
“Savior: Jesus’ divine, perfect nature allows Him to insert himself in our place, appeasing the requirements of the Law and God’s holiness” (Mike)
I have some debate about the wording used here. You suppose divinity in order for the calculation work correctly – but without divinity is the calculation still possible?
Also the ‘requirements of the law’ part – which parts of the law – all of it or certain aspects (ie: blood propitiation)? I would also be quick to point out – the law is not ‘done away with’ according to Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”. Is all accomplished? I would say ‘no’ at this point – thus a 2nd coming.
I think Jesus sets the relationship in order for humanity and God to interact – even he plays a Mediator role there – I love that idea! What I do not love is the idea – and you can correct me here – is that Jesus fulfilled the Law and now we do not have to follow it (vicarious righteousness – we do not have to be righteous – we are imputed that)?
“I would challenge those of you who would isolate yourselves in your faith that if you really believe that Jesus is the Christ, Lord, and Savior, you would willingly want to open yourself up to the community of believers” (Mike)
Good challenge…I haven’t set foot in a church in about 8 months or so. I like your call to community (which I am a part of – just not a church one) – but that’s an aspect I truly respect. I will have to take you up on your challenge here at some point – and try to plant myself in a church community somewhere…for the corporate and individual parts to be satisfied.
Societyvs,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. It is really crunch time for me in school, and it is hard to keep up!
Let me reiterate how much I appreciate your willingness to dive into this stuff. I feel like the more we interact, the more on-the-same-page we are in our discussion.
First, regarding 2 Peter, I am thrilled that you chose a passage in the same text because not every author uses the same term the same way. It is important to recognize that Peter was Jewish, and as such wrote utilizing very Jewish conventions. A few of these (and the ones that pertain here) are the concepts of Chiasm and Parallelism. 1:1 and 1:2 could be read in such a way that distinguish God and Jesus:
“of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
“of God and of Jesus our Lord”
A bare translation into English leads one to the possibility that God and Jesus are distinguished here. However in the Greek, the usage of Chiasm (A,B,B’,A’) indicates that these two parallel phrases about Jesus are equating Jesus with God Himself. So whatever distinction we might make between Jesus and God, they have to be made in such a way that leaves them fully equal to one another, that is to say both are divine and in many ways when you talk about one, you are talking about the other.
This was the main area that I wanted to hit on in your response, if there are other areas you wanted to concentrate on, let me know.
I was glad to hear that you were receptive of my challenge. The thing God has been teaching me the most over the past two years was how dependent He has made me on other people. I have for so long isolated myself from others, and it has been really cool to see how some very hard things in my life have been softened by the presence of some very Godly men and women who offered to carry my burden when I couldnt. We are not islands, and we were never intended to be. I hope that as you respond to that challenge, you find a community that loves you the way I have been loved. That would be my hope for everyone.
jesus sets up a community that stems from those on the outside looking in and moves from there to a global scene.
you’re interepretation is almost there but there are some base assumptions i don’t agree with. the theory is there but the wording sloppy.
your knock on other religions is something Jesus would frown on… all are your neighbor, all are to be loved. these are the other people you may one day be dependent upon.
there is also a supersessionist track running here, but i would expect that from appologetics. if we are called to love, why the are we trying to set ourselves above our brothers and sisters from other traditions?
Luke,
“your knock on other religions is something Jesus would frown on… all are your neighbor, all are to be loved.”
My whole point is that it isnt my knock, it is the knock that I have inherited as a Judeo-Christian. It should be noted however that the exclusivity of Judeo-Christian faith has always (biblically) been intended for the benefit of the nations (Gen. 12:1-3, Ex. 19:3-6, etc.). In other words, the Jews and Christians are intended to keep this truth not just for themselves, but to take it to all the nations of the world (Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, etc.).
“if we are called to love, why the are we trying to set ourselves above our brothers and sisters from other traditions”
Our tag-line here is “love without truth is neglect, truth without love is abuse.” It would be truly unloving of me to deny my fellow sinners a knowledge of the one true God who desires to draw them to Himself. I do not privilege myself above anyone else. I love the Living God so much that I want everyone to be in relationship with Him. If that seems unloving to you, I might ask what you would find truly loving.
“Sorry it took me so long to respond” (Mike)
That’s cool Mike – life takes time.
“However in the Greek, the usage of Chiasm (A,B,B’,A’) indicates that these two parallel phrases about Jesus are equating Jesus with God Himself” (Mike)
I decided to check into this structure and see what you referring to…and this gets interesting so…check this out!
“The ABBAABB…ABBA chiastic structure is used to contrast concepts A and B, which are usually closely related, but very different. First, concept A is mentioned once. Then B twice, A twice … until the structure ends with a final A. The format points the contrast between the two ideas, and the idea of something deeper.
An example of this chiastic structure is found in the beginning of chapter 4 of the Book of Genesis, when the two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, are contrasted. The Torah describes their names, their occupations, and their offerings. The Torah mentions Cain first, then Abel twice, then Cain twice, and so on. The structure draws attention to the differences between Cain and Abel, pointing out the essential difference in their personalities.” (Wikipedia – Chiastic Structure).
Notice the structure actually keeps the ideas linked – but they are different. You seem to be telling me this structure proves Jesus is being ‘related’ to God (this is true) – but being ‘related’ to God does not make one God – and the structure itself would make me believe they are actually intended to be different. I am not sure 1 Peter is using a chiastic structure at all (to be even more honest – considering the Cain and Abel example). But if it is being used, it is being used to heighten the relation and difference (2 aspects).
“Cedric Whitman in his study of the Iliad and the Odyssey exposed a chiastic structure “of the most amazing virtuosity” that simultaneously performed both aesthetic and mnemonic functions, permitting the oral poet to easily recall the basic formulae of the composition during performances.” (Wikipedia – Chiastic Structure)
Also chiastic structure is used for memorization – a technique proven to be useful in ancient languages. Maybe Peter links them in such a way to make sure they are ‘memorized’ (or maybe not – but it does show the use of such a structure – could basically be something as simple as memorization).
“So whatever distinction we might make between Jesus and God, they have to be made in such a way that leaves them fully equal to one another, that is to say both are divine and in many ways when you talk about one, you are talking about the other” (Mike)
Divinity is not the point of the passages – the usage of savior and Lord are – beside the Great God (proximity). Which could be inferring a point from the gospels (this closeness) – ‘Jesus at the right hand of God’ – showing a closeness and Peter could be using a structure as such to re-iterate the Messiah is very close to God (but not God). A point I am always quick to point out since this was a well known idea in Jewish circles (messiah is not God).
“I hope that as you respond to that challenge, you find a community that loves you the way I have been loved. That would be my hope for everyone.” (Mike)
Thanks Mike, we will see what the future holds – so far it looks very good.
the one true God as expressed in Christianity, or in Judiasm? God revealed in the Bible or tradition? and which tradition?
i love God as well.. what would seem loving is just loving without setting ourselves over others. “They will know we are Christians by our love” not by our dogma or “biblical” claims.
Luke,
If I said 2+2=5, would you be “knocking” me by stating it is in fact, 4?
Brad- must you be so simplistic? what math are you using? simple math then no, 2+2=4. however, and there are always howevers as this world is complex.
well, in mathematics 1+1 is always 2. In other situations, say having a family, 1+1=3. or sometimes 1+1=2 or 3, and even 6! Depends on how many babies those two people produce, this is a question of genetics and fitness. and in Jesus’ birth, these same people that shoot down relativism state that 0+1=2! seems like these people are selectively relative themselves.
My good buddy Ron emailed me that to show more of the relativity of mathmatics. He states, “I did however want to let you know that 1+1 is not always 2 in mathematics. Sometimes 1+1=0 in mathematics. How you ask? It’s binary addition. It’s what makes the switches and electronic stuff in your house work. Thought you might like that little bit of that inside information to blow your mind some more.”
so once again… what are you using?
1st grade mathematics. It’s a simple question, but certainly not simplistic.
So…
If I said 2 (beans)+2 (beans)=5 (beans), would you be “knocking” me by stating it is in fact, 4 (beans)?
“If I said 2 (beans)+2 (beans)=5 (beans), would you be “knocking” me by stating it is in fact, 4 (beans)?” (Brad)
I am gueesing this in reference to these claims:
“your knock on other religions is something Jesus would frown on” (Luke)
“It would be truly unloving of me to deny my fellow sinners a knowledge of the one true God who desires to draw them to Himself” (Mike)
All this in reference to: “The exclusion of “Lord” not only denies the divinity of Jesus, but also denies the exclusivity of Christianity” (Mike)
I think the concept is a lot deeper than a question like ‘does 2+2=5 or 4?’. The question seems to want to deal with math - in which - we find one answer for the question asked. That’s not the same as dealing with teachings/writings - which can have more than 1 definition.
Granted, we are dealing with the salvation calculation (coined by me - lol)…but that’s like saying the way + the truth + the life = Jesus (who also = access to God). That’s a nice calculation per se - but we are dealing a teaching (requires interpretation) and not a math quiz.
The better example to teaching, from the mathematics background, is how math gets used. For example, in building a roof or even the edging of home - do engineers only pick one single way of incorporating that simple math? Or do they find creative ways for the use of that simple math like rounded edges for the corners of homes or even a roof that is flat instead of cottage/bungalow?
In Engineering, we see that math gets used (which is all the same math principles) in a variety of creative ways to create ‘one home’ or ‘one roof’. Regardless of the differences in the way roofs and homes look - they are all still ‘a roof on a home’ or ‘a wall on a house’ - singular - in a very plural/creative world of houses.
That’s my breakdown of the complexity of exclusivity and using interpretation from a book (John) known for it’s many uses of symbology. ‘I am’ referring to the ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life…’ passage from John 14:6 of course. There is not only ‘one way’ of looking at that passage.
There would be only ‘one way’ if Jesus actually said this ‘I am the one/only way, truth, and life…no man comes to God but (literally and not figuratively) through me’. Now how that would look depends on the viewer - I ain’t never walked ‘through’ someone before so I am not sure of how this would look.
Fact is, Jesus is referring to his teachings - which can be boiled down to Love God and Love your neighbor…and anyone can do that. If he is not referring to his teachings but to himself - then why the need for baptism?
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19)
Isn’t that kind of strange when all is taken care of already? This is apparently said ‘after the ascension’. All is already finished - except for this baptism thing - and the teachings which are referred to in vs. 20 (and baptism being one of the teachings Jesus knew about and approved - via John’s minsitry).
If Jesus is ‘the way’ then we must be referring to ‘his teachings’ and not just the ‘life’ of the person (which encompasses all 3 parts of the John 14:6 sentence). Life/living is 1/3, seeking (truth mining/study) is 1/3, and acknowledging the path to God is in the teachings (which are not from us) is 1/3.
That’s another way I am looking at that simple math equation which when digested - is not so simple at all.
Societyvs and Luke,
I dont want to put words in Brad’s mouth, but as I read his initial comment in its place in the thread, it seems to me that the point Brad was making with the math equation is that if someone miscalculates something, are we in the wrong to correct them? That was all. In other words, is it in any way unloving, conceited, or condescending for a math teacher to correct his/her student for misconstruing 2+2=4 in basic arithmetic?
Now, as Societyvs has pointed out, the case of Jesus’ teaching is more difficult for us today to understand because He was speaking in the language of a Jewish and Hellenistic culture, so it was incredibly common for Him to borrow language that had deep meaning to the people at the time, and nuance it in a new way.
For instance, the John 14 passage Societyvs quoted “I am the way, the truth, and the life” has tons of Jewish background going on behind it. First, Torah was called the way, truth and life. So when Jesus makes this claim about Himself, He is indicating to the Jews that He is one who is greater than the law, and the way for the nations to know Yahweh is through Him. Second, the “I Am” there (ego eimi, in the greek), is very likely a reference to the divine name YHWH, which is a play on the Hebrew “I Am What I Am” or “I Am what I Will Be.” Third, the language about knowing God “through him” is covenantal language. While we are largely unfamiliar with covenants, and consequently what it means to be “in someone,” this was a common understanding in Judaism. It simply means that what is true of the covenant representative is true of the other members of the covenant. This is why Jesus places an emphasis on baptism, because it is entrance into the covenant with Jesus as representative before God by means of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:18-20).
The point is that whoever makes a comment on what Jesus is “saying” in this passage, they need to take these things into account. It is neither unloving, conceited, or condescending to correct someone who would neglect them.
I realize these are a lot of words to put in Brad’s mouth, but that is how I read him initially.
Mike,
Can you put words into my mouth more often? Because you definitely said it better than I would have. I wholeheartedly agree.
Let me add though, that we live in a culture with many religions (a “plurality” of religions), but the Bible unequivocally denounces religious pluralism/universalism. If we get that from the text, it is because we have read it into the text. While grounded in a motivation to love your neighbor, it neglects the justice of God and simply is not there.
“2+2=4 in basic arithmetic”
not in basic, but you have to name what you were using.
“unequivocally denounces religious pluralism/universalism.”
so what then is the lesson of the good samaritian? exclusivity of christianity is crap. sorry, but it’s UNIVERSAL! We’re called to see Christ in our fellow human beings.
as for the justice of God, Should I not care about Nineveh, that great city…?” (Jonah 4:11) Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine (job 41:11).
what we engage in when we declare ourselves exclusive owners of God is really saying “My Dad is Better than Your Dad.” We engage in a cosmic pissing match.
the farewell discourses are always cited here.. esp. John 14:6… read the whole thing. Jesus is saying “You must be the embodiment of my spirit.” Jesus is the way.. and we can be too. start acting like it.
Luke,
“so what then is the lesson of the good samaritian?”
The key is in the context. The parable is told with this background:
Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
The parable Jesus gives describes the second greatest commandment in relation to the question “Who is my neighbor?” The GREATEST commandment is to love the LORD, that is, the personal God of the Jews, with all your heart, soul, and strength. This is a quote of Deut. 6:5 and is a pillar verse in the Jewish community.
You also mention quote from Jonah 4:11, but you neglect the whole point for Jonah’s trip! If it is really God’s intention to accept everyone’s opinion and lifestyle as is, then why is Jonah’s trip to Nineveh even necessary?
What about Elijah’s duel with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18)? If God answered to any name, or if all paths lead to God, why did God answer Elijah and deny the prophets of Baal?
Why did God not accept the worship of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10)? He didnt accept it because they offered it in a manner that God did not command (Numbers 3:4, 24:61). This means that appropriate worship comes in the way God commands it, and it is by His name that He commands.
Now that I have mentioned worship, you will undoubtedly turn to John 4 and quote Jesus saying “true worship is in spirit and truth” making some claim that this is a universalist expansion. However, Jesus makes it rather clear that HE is the way, truth, and life. It is in the HOLY SPIRIT that we must worship to be acceptable to God.
“what we engage in when we declare ourselves exclusive owners of God is really saying “My Dad is Better than Your Dad.”
Well, considering God did this Himself with the plagues against Egypt (each one being a repudiation of a different God the Egyptians worshiped), I will leave it to the resounding testimony of His own work to show that He is living, while every other god someone may worship is dead.
Now I should also comment that my attitude toward my fellow man should be like that of Paul in the Areopagus (Acts 17), commending men and women of different faiths for their spirituality, but ultimately pointing them to the truth of the One True God whose name is YHWH.
Luke kudos on the explanation - couldn’t agree more.
Mike, the fact John alludes to the ‘I Am’ teachings makes Jesus God, correct? This makes no sense however - cause Jesus through-out John is willing to play an underling role to the Father (which would be his equal in the God-head - correct?).
Maybe the ‘I Am’ teachings are not about proclaimation to being God - but to being very close to God (closer than those of his contemporaries or anyone after him). That’s also an aspect of 1st century (and after) Judaism/Hellenism - not so much the ‘I Am’ usage (maybe in Greek thought) - but definitely the ’son of God’ usage.
The “I Am’ statement could also be an outright challenge to Caeser (the god man) and allegiance…challenging on the basis of another person more worthy of Caesar - another type of god man. The challenge could be the importance - for the sake of allegiance to God and not some god man Caesar - but the one God blessed - which would be seen as the real Caesar to a better kingdom (which Jesus is tried for - his kingdom). Of course, this is all from John.
“He is indicating to the Jews that He is one who is greater than the law” (Mike)
This phrase appears nowhere in the gospels.
The covenant part I agree with - like signing a treaty - or making a committment. God signs first mind you - lest we be remiss to remember that.
Also, explain baptism to me - as Jesus once quipped - “The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?”. What’s it’s actual significance?
“It is neither unloving, conceited, or condescending to correct someone who would neglect them.” (Mike)
Well, then they need to be right first off to make the claim you are making - or they add error to error. I have no problem with helping someone determine the ‘errors of their ways’…kudo’s…but we also need to be someone they can ‘talk with’ as an equal (which happens on these blog circles a lot).
I am going to ask the big question here - since we are talking about exclusivity in Jesus’ words - what happens to those that don’t do it right (by that I mean join the faith)?
Are their varying degree’s of hell for each person or what happens to them? Some do not get baptised…what of them? Some do not accept Jesus as we know it - what of them? Some people live great lives - even follow the teachings - but dont know it…what of them? There are too many ‘what of them’ scenario’s when dealing with exclusivity and this ‘one way’…is their only ‘one way’ to accept Jesus?
OK…. let’s root this in Scripture first.
How is universalism reconcilable with the first commandment?
“You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7)
Or, that Israel is exiled/disciplined/rebuked for worshipping other gods more times than you can count?
And before you say that Jesus changed all that, don’t forget Matthew 5:17-18 -
“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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
The early church fathers Tertullian and Augustine fought vehemently against universalism because it is so contradictory to all of the Jewish and Christian faith. Even a brief study of church history shows that the exclusivity of Christianity is an established and undeniable fact. While it has “popped up” on the historical radar occasionally, it has been the exception by far.
Only since the popularism of New Age and cultural universalism has it become anything close to common in Christianity. Scholars like Leslie Newbiggin and Francis Schaefer have repeatedly proven that pluralism/universalism is more a product of cultural value and wishful thinking than theologically sound exegesis. None of the metanarrative of scripture makes sense (sin? the Fall? Israel’s 40 years of wandering after Sinai? the exiles? Christ’s death in the first place? Why need any of it, if it didn’t matter?) if you eisegete universalism into scripture.
Brad, here are my automatic answers:
(1) We are not Israel from the Tanakh; we are actually Gentiles
(2) You have a conundrum in your argument - Paul actually states we are not subject to ‘that law’ - the passages quoted are either from the law or Jesus acknowledgement they will not ‘pass away’. Either way, Paul states a Gentile is not subject to those ‘laws’. Or are we?
I actually do believe Jesus’ words, the law still is good (and was meant for good) and will not pass away (nor should it). So I will follow you in this convo.
Maybe you haven’t noticed this in current society - but most people now talk about God as one - this is extremely common in the West (and I would say the world). Is everyone’s ‘One God’ different…so there are many gods? That is not what most people are claiming - and neither are those people claiming God is some idol.
So in a sense, people are seeking the One God - the ‘I AM’ (the really exists God) - and I think we can help provide direction in that search - and maybe it helps (maybe it doesn’t). We are asked to go and teach these thing to others - I agree - but if someone cannot learn from our faith (and it happens) then if they go somewhere else for that help - will God ignore them?
Personally, I like the Christian faith - I like the Messiah idea - I like the people - and I love the teachings (they spoke to me when nothing else could). God spoke to me here and that’s what I realize. But God speaks to my friend in the Muslim faith also - now why is that? I blog with a Jewish lady endued with wisdom - God speaks to her - why is that? I have friends into traditional First Nations spirituality and God leads them into good - why is that? I literally have to pretend this is not so for it to be true they do not serve God - but I cannot deny what I am seeing with my own 2 eyes and hearing with my own 2 ears.
I don’t need a religious set of rules to see the obvious - and I am glad most people have their ritual traditions - at the bare bones of all of this God is interacting with us all. Now that may be universalist in nature - but I think God is universalist in nature (loves all). I am not a universalist (Mind you) but I do think people from a variety of faiths are finding the One God in unique ways - I refuse to deny it.
“None of the metanarrative of scripture makes sense (sin? the Fall? Israel’s 40 years of wandering after Sinai? the exiles? Christ’s death in the first place? Why need any of it, if it didn’t matter?) if you eisegete universalism into scripture” (Brad)
You mean ‘none of scriopture (as you know it) makes sense..’. I am a universalist up to the point ‘God loves them all’ - cause that’s all I need to know. Covenant - schovenant - I have no time for how the rules define someone - God is in the midst of caring about them (and so should I). What happens to them in the end - God knows - but what happens to them ‘now’ - God knows that I also know - thus…I had best where my faith in my heart (where it is needed).
““You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7)” (BRAD)
and that is YWHW in the Jewish lore, not Jesus. therefore christians worshiping Jesus as god is wrong as Jesus is not YWHW. that’s from the jewish perspective.. it’s a slippery slope.
“The early church fathers Tertullian and Augustine fought vehemently against universalism because it is so contradictory to all of the Jewish and Christian faith.” (BRAD)
and yet Origen and Clement of Alexandria were universalists writing in the very early stages on christianity in the 300’s. appealing to history or the bible isn’t cut and dry because they don’t say one absolute thing.. you have competeing absolutes.
“You also mention quote from Jonah 4:11, but you neglect the whole point for Jonah’s trip! ” (matt)
which was what? doesn’t say in the story itself!! just says “Go and cry out against the city” the assyrians repent only to later over run the Israelites. what was the point? it’s not conversion.
as for the good samaritain, he does state the message from Duet, however he also widens the claim of “who is my neighbor”. the neighbor is anyone who shows mercy and we are to go and do likewise.
john 4 is nice, so is JOHN 10:4-16 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Some believe this is for the conversion of other faiths to Christianity… but let’s look at what Jesus is and is not saying. He refers to other adherents of other faiths (other sheep…) who ALREADY belong to him (I have…) and therefore when he calls them they will listen. Jesus isn’t calling for these sheep to change shepherds, he is trying to get us to recognize that the human family is one flock, with one shepherd. What he is NOT saying is “different strokes for different folks” nor is he saying “anyone can worship the god of one’s choice, it’s all good, no matter what.” Which faiths? They aren’t identified. We may surmise that faiths that truly follow the ONE Shephred actively promote the love of God, neighbor, and self as Jesus did. Jesus also states that people shouldn’t worry about what path others are on. He demonstrates time and time again throughout the Gospels for his disciples to concentrate on walking their own path and offering hospitality to those they meet on along the way… the Good Samaritan parable is the core here. Who is my neighbor? EVERYONE!
there is also Matt 25:31-46 with the sheep and the goats and how we will be judged by our actions. Could Jesus be that muslim man in prison? could jesus be that hungry jew we pass on the street? yes. as we will be judged for what we did not do to the least of these we did not do it to Jesus (Matt 25:45)
here is what i’m saying: NOT all theologies are equal. I’m a Christian, I believe in Christ. HOWEVER! When we start saying “our religion is better than yours” where do we stop? We can sort in our own and start saying the Christian Scientists and Uniterians are out… and so are the NonDenoms or the Methodists or whoever. The pope as recently said all protestants are leading ppl straight to hell because we can’t claim apostolic descent. (http://toothface.blogspot.com/2007/07/heresy.html) where do we stop?
i would suggest comparative theology. this is taking your own tradition and putting it in conversation with others.. this is my Vatican II catholic self talking now… we do this inter-denominationally and inter-tradition and what what similarities or distinct takes on our own faith we can get. the only way i’m a christian again is because i was buddhist. studying buddhism led me straight back to the wisdom and teachings of christ, despite my own objections to going back
when we claim exclusivity, i see this as a step down a violent path, which you’ve cited in your old testament scriptures. violence is bad! jesus came and set up a counter-cultural, egalitatrian community for his followers. to set ourselves over our fellow brothers and sisters is a step away from jesus and a step towards “bashing babies heads on rocks” found in Joshua because these people do not follow the “one true God.”
we follow Jesus. how did jesus convert? did he go and say “you’re all wrong and going to hell” or did he convert through his actions?
Society,
“(1) We are not Israel from the Tanakh; we are actually Gentiles”
Gentile proselytes were expected to follow the Tanakh as well. There is no double standard.
“(2) You have a conundrum in your argument”
If we interpret his use of “law” in the same way as “Torah” (emphasis on guidance), then yes, we do have a problem. But Paul was speaking into a culture that had taken the original law and used it for a purpose (justification) different from it’s original intent (guidance for the people of God).
“Now that may be universalist in nature - but I think God is universalist in nature (loves all). I am not a universalist (Mind you) but I do think people from a variety of faiths are finding the One God in unique ways - I refuse to deny it.”
That God loves all is not necessarily Universalist. Sure, He loves universally, but our culture’s view of love is one that equates it with absolute tolerance and pluralism. My name is Brad Edwards. I have many describable attributes (6′1″ tall, short brown hair, hazel eyes, white freckled skin). If you go around looking for me, but believe that I am a blonde-haired, blue-eyed midget named Gary, you won’t ever find me. In the same way, God has some very describable attributes, including a name. A God by any other name is not God. Allah? Sorry. Buddha? Krishna? Om? Sorry. None of the above.
Is that unloving? No. Unloving would be if God hadn’t told us who He is by giving us the Bible. In short, “we know better.”
“Covenant - schovenant - I have no time for how the rules define someone - God is in the midst of caring about them (and so should I)”
Even if it is God Himself who gives them?
Luke,
“and that is YWHW in the Jewish lore, not Jesus. therefore christians worshiping Jesus as god is wrong as Jesus is not YWHW. that’s from the jewish perspective.. it’s a slippery slope.”
I’m not sure if you noticed, but you never actually answered the question. How is universalism reconcilable with the first commandment?
“and yet Origen and Clement of Alexandria were universalists writing in the very early stages on christianity in the 300’s”
Actually Origen (185-254) and Clement (150-211) were Platonists/Neo-Platonists who fused Christian Theology with Hellenic Philosophy. Universalism is a product of this. Tertullian (160-225) spent most of his life writing against the gnostic heresies (to include universalism). While both Origen and Clement are recognized as having contributed to the church and theology in many areas, their Hellenistic and Gnostic influences have been historically condemned.
I’ll let Mike tackle the issues with Jonah, John, and Matthew. I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But let me tackle this:
“when we claim exclusivity, i see this as a step down a violent path, which you’ve cited in your old testament scriptures. violence is bad!”
So would you then judge the God’s decision to make violence of any kind? Is all violence bad? Self-defense? Do you deny God’s claim to vengeance (Deut. 32:35)? Have you read the book of Revelation? Before you answer any of those questions, I’d love to hear how exclusivity automatically leads to violence in the first place.
“jesus came and set up a counter-cultural, egalitatrian community for his followers.”
Jesus is not a communist. He wasn’t interested in an earthly kingdom, but a Heavenly one.
“we follow Jesus. how did jesus convert? did he go and say “you’re all wrong and going to hell” or did he convert through his actions?”
Both.
“He wasn’t interested in an earthly kingdom, but a Heavenly one.”
he was interested in both, you can read through and find both.
“He loves universally, but our culture’s view of love is one that equates it with absolute tolerance and pluralism.”
exactly! this is what i was trying to get to, beautifully worded…
” A God by any other name is not God. Allah? Sorry. Buddha? Krishna? Om? Sorry. None of the above. ”
you’re right! Buddha isn’t a God… in fact Buddha said “If you meet Buddha, kill him.” How does this relate?
there was a big stink over the Golden Compass and how ppl thought that this atheist was “killing God.” In the same vein i’ll say that “If you meet god, kill him.” If you can kill God, it really isn’t God is it?
“I’d love to hear how exclusivity automatically leads to violence in the first place.”
it may not automatically lead, but it’s the first step towards dehumanization. there is not “us vs. them” but only us, the human family. this is laid out in Mimetic Theory which is an excellent way of viewing the world. i’ve written on this subject but the best place to check it out is PreachingPeace.org and their introductory articles.
the point being, God doesn’t really care what you think. Jesus laid out the commandments to love God (Duet) and Love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev). We are to be the living witness, the embodiment of Christ as Christ is the Way, the truthful way and the living way.
I think the problem here with the first commandment is assuming you know what universalism is. Univeralism is NOT acceptance of all religious beliefs, as there is good theology and bad theology. as for tolerance, that’s the name of the game! aren’t we supposed to turn the other cheek and not do the things that we hate? Universalism put by Origen is based on idea of apokatastasis or the universal reconciliation of all things — the cornerstone of Christian Universalism.
http://emergingfaith.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30
i would also like passages on “did he go and say “you’re all wrong and going to hell” as i see the “there will be judgement and “gnashing of teeth” but i don’t see the “you’re all wrong” part… and if there is, who is jesus talking to? usually when ppl talk about salvation it’s rarely about us and more about them… those nonchristians who are wrong and must be saved.
as one of my fellow seminarians says, “Preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, if nessesary, use words.” Mercy triumphs over Judgment, James 2:13
“How does this relate?”
Any other “way” or “truth” or “life” apart from Jesus is neither the “way” the “truth” or “life” at all.
“he point being, God doesn’t really care what you think. Jesus laid out the commandments to love God (Duet) and Love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev).”
2 things:
1.) Yes He does. It’s impossible to be in a relationship with God (and thus love Him) if you don’t know who God is, or who you think God is, is wrong.
2.) Yes, we must love our neighbors as ourselves. How does one love? For that, I direct you to the tagline of our blog.
“I think the problem here with the first commandment is assuming you know what universalism is.”
I feel like i have a good handle on it, but I’ll be happy to check out the link and do some further reading…
““Preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, if nessesary, use words.” ”
I dig it. I’ve heard that before. And exclusive Christianity is anything but incompatible with that. So in that, we at least agree.
“Any other “way” or “truth” or “life” apart from Jesus is neither the “way” the “truth” or “life” at all.”
can you embody Jesus and never read a word about him? This goes back to the “isolation conundrum” that presents the question that if ppl are isolated on an island and never exposed to Christianity yet lead wonderful, loving lives, do they still go to hell?
trackback link: http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/02/lets-not-and-say-we-did.html
“Gentile proselytes were expected to follow the Tanakh as well. There is no double standard” (Brad)
I am not sure about this – give me some proof so I can agree or disagree. Paul seems pretty sure about not following the law for the Gentiles in his letters…and by that he usually means the actual law (ie: including circumcision). He had fierce debates over this in his letters with Gentile communities.
“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:14)
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4)
Whereas I can also see your point – and Paul states it beautifully:
“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8)
“Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10)
“God has some very describable attributes, including a name. A God by any other name is not God. Allah? Sorry. Buddha? Krishna? Om? Sorry. None of the above” (Brad)
Actually, God does not have a name. The name God gives to Moses is simply ‘I am who I am’ (the One that exists). We can call God Father or a plethora of names – but they are us explaining God (not the other way around). Fact is Jesus never calls God by a name – like Dave or something. God neither has describable physical characteristics that I could show someone so they know they ‘are seeking the right God’.
What we do have is something else – the values and vices as laid out in teachings – to know we are ‘following God’. Allah actually means God (nothing more – it’s Arabic). Buddha and Krishna – don’t ask me – but they seem more like seekers than actual Gods. I think anyone in any of these faiths can and do follow God – as long as they find the parts of the teachings concerning living one’s faith and values (disavowing vices). If these people in other faiths manage to ‘love God’ and in turn ‘love their neighbor’ then how can we say – they are not following God? Paul says ‘love is the fulfillment of the Law’ (also a Jesus teaching). Not correct theology or describing God (an impossible task) – but love.
Now we follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ – because we believe he is the messiah. They may not follow this Messiah but they do well to honor God and love their neighbor – fulfilling the spirit/intent of the law (according to Paul’s argument). What more can we ask of them…they are doing as much as us?
“Even if it is God Himself who gives them?” (Brad)
It’s a covenant – but the actual covenant was ratified by God and secured by God – not by us (according to most church theology). We actually add nothing to the covenant – signed, sealed, and delivered by God – not requiring our signature (unless we think baptism is that important – which would work as our signature?). So I don’t put much into covenant theology – because according to mainstream Christianity everyone is allowed into the covenant – and we should not hold back anyone. But is the covenant exclusive…not really.
The covenant talk is usually between God and humanity…the Christ plays sacrifice to inaugurate this covenant (thus communion ceremony). Now this depends on out role in the covenant – what do you think our role is?
Luke,
“This goes back to the “isolation conundrum” that presents the question that if ppl are isolated on an island and never exposed to Christianity yet lead wonderful, loving lives, do they still go to hell?”
And that is definitely a problem, but more of a “problem” than it should be.
Sin is rebellion. We live in rebellion. We don’t start in the “neutral,” or at zero, we start in the negative. That is a choice we made, and our ancestors made (something western individualism doesn’t really provide a framework for). Thus, for God to save anyone is an act of grace, more than we deserve, and in fact “unfair.” “Fair” would be allowing us to condemn ourselves to Hell. Thus, for the people on the island, yeah it sucks, and I’d rather they kick it with Jesus, too, but that just means we need to get to that island and show them the love of Christ (in both word and deed). In short, that is a “missional” problem, not a “theological” problem. Does that make sense? (I’m pretty sure you’ll disagree, but am I communicating it clearly?)
And I had read your post already actually, and yeah… I’m not a fan of the guy’s theology. Paul says that we are “without excuse.” In short, his theology is self-contradicting, and it sounds like he’s trying to solve the problem by combining biblical theology with wishful thinking.
“Oh he absolutely does. YHWH is not a verb, grammatically or lexically”
and also El Shaddiah… or just El.. which would be more than one name.. plus there’s no way of knowing if YHWH was ever used. http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?noframes;read=196
El is the name of the head of the canaanite pantheon. this theory is called the inner-religous revolution theory… http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm
it’s a theory, but worth noting if it comes up with any future congregants.
so what does this mean about “divine inspiration ”
it gives it a wider scope. we’re all sinners, i agree, so let’s keep humble and approach with love to our fellow nations. like the phrase that we both like “preach the gospel…” we can also HEAR the gospel from others who know not what they’re saying. this type of universalism works both ways. it keeps me humble, teaches, and affirms my walk with Christ.
“You mention Allah, what about the terrorists who truly believe that slaughtering hundreds of infidels is the best way to love God and others?”
or about the christians in the crusades or the inquisition? blood is on all of the world religion’s hands. this is not the work of God but the work of human ego and sinfulness in any religion in every context.
“Sin is rebellion. We live in rebellion. We don’t start in the “neutral,” or at zero, we start in the negative. That is a choice we made, and our ancestors made…Thus, for God to save anyone is an act of grace, more than we deserve, and in fact “unfair.”” (Brad)
Actually, this theology is flawed – in a very big way. God moved towards us – while we were still sinners – but it was His movement (and in all incidences through-out the Tanakh). You question ‘fairness’ and call what God does (His movement towards us – not ours towards Him) as ‘unfair’…that you can take up with God (I cannot defend that). But it is not theologically correct either – we actually start in the plus (or else all kid’s who die are doomed) – because God moved towards us first! Original sin is a moot point in my opinion.
““Fair” would be allowing us to condemn ourselves to Hell” (Brad)
This is a very low view of humanity and I won’t even get into the doctrine of hell.
“YHWH is not a verb, grammatically or lexically” (Brad)
So you would say, once we all get to heaven and debate this with God, ‘God, we know your name’? ‘It’s four letters without vowels…but most people just call you God’. Name or not, I am not sure about it, all I know is Jesus calls God Father – and not by some personal name (which he must have known) – and even YHWH means “I am the One I Am’ – and is that necessarily a name as much as God explaining the obvious?
“But if scripture is indeed “holy” and “from God” (however you define it), ultimately all labels for God are from Him” (Brad)
But they do not necessarily mean they are a name…but explanations of God’s character. Even YHWH is disputed out the ‘ying-yang’ to this day – from correct spelling to correct consonants. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh - the debate over this is very intense and still not hashed out. What if we are saying God’s name wrong?
“But what is the standard? How much is enough?” (Brad)
I am not sure – there is no ‘test-a-human meter’ for the correct amount of love one shows towards God and their neighbor. I guess that is up to you to decide.
“Without a comprehensive understanding of the depth of our sin, and our need for reconciled relationship with God, even the love Ghandi showed his neighbor will not be enough. Not because God is not merciful enough, but because humanity is THAT depraved” (Brad)
I will raise OSS’ argument here: “Why does murder get considered a bad fruit based on the merit of the action itself, and feeding the poor or being compassionate get considered a good fruit not based on merit, but based on the person’s belief system?”. There is a double standard going on here.
(a) Christian does good = fruit from God
(b) Non-believer does good = not fruit from God
(c) Christian does evil = not fruit from God
(d) Non-believer does evil = not fruit from God
We see with the ‘evil’ category – no matter who does it – it’s not from God. I agree. Now we see with ‘good’ – only ½ the people that do that are considered ‘just’. This seems like an un-fair measure to mete out to others – what’s the basis?
“That said, our role is to Love God and Love our neighbors. But this is done in many ways, including (but not limited to): preaching the gospel, materially helping those in need, glorifying God in worship and the sacraments, raising our children with the teachings of God, repenting of sin and cooperating with God in our sanctification, helping others do the same, making disciples of all the nations, etc.” (Brad)
Actually, and just we both know, loving God and loving our neighbor is not defined – unless we use the surrounding teachings as proof for what they mean (or could mean). Thus we end up at square #1 – the teachings are what is asked of us - they help define the only 2 commandments anyways.
There’s a lot to respond to here, but most would be a significantly larger post in and of itself. Let me respond to OSS’s argument though…
It’s good, but not quite it. “Murder” ascribes intent. It means a person was unlawfully and intentionally killed. Feeding the poor does not ascribe intent or motivation necessarily. The heart is ambiguous in that category. A better analogy would be “killing” vs. “feeding the poor.” Killing could be for good (defense of one’s family) or evil (murder). Feeding the poor could be for good (compassion) or evil (pride, patting oneself on the back). For both the Christian and the non-Christian, the intent/motivation is important, and will show whether it is “from God” or not.
One of my favorite doctrines (who seminarian is that?) is the doctrine of Common Grace. God shines sun, and sends rain on all (Matthew 5:45). A non-Christian can create as good or better art than the Christian. In the same way, Christians and non-Christians are both capable of love and doing things “of God.”
Rom. 2:14-
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, xby nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…”
Reformed Christianity can absolutely affirm that non-Christians can do acts of good, and those acts can even be “from God.” However, this does NOT mean that they are followers/believers of God. While there is overlap, Common Grace is very different from Salvific Grace. Remember, the SECOND greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. The first is to love God. They are not one and the same.
But the original idea behind this was that while other religions can produce fruit, it’s not fruit borne of the One True God — and it sounded like you were going into the idea that it was fruit produced by someone who wasn’t God. Now it is fruit produced of that God? However, we are given clear criteria as to what the fruit is that comes from God — after all, a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and vice versa. It still comes down to the idea that you can judge who is not a follower of God based on actions alone, and yet can’t do the same for a follower of God. We could have someone who has the right faith, who has repented and so forth, but if they do the works of the flesh, then they aren’t a follower of God. Yet if we reverse that, and have someone who does the works of the Spirit, and yet has no faith, that person is also not a follower of God? Why isn’t the standard of judgement the same across the board?
We can narrow down the argument, and say that why is someone who is envious, or jealous, or quarrels considered not a follower based on those actions, and yet someone who produces the fruit is only considered a follower if faith is included as well? I still see it as a double-standard.
In this case, the movitation behind the fruit of the Spirit was doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. The motivation was the same for the Christian and non-Christian. I don’t go with the idea that the motivation should be to please God, because that can come too closely to the idea that I want God pleased with my actions, and if you’re doing something to make God pleased with your actions, that borders too closely to selfishness. The focus is still on you (general you), not the righteousness of the act itself.
Loving God and loving one’s neighbor can be the same. If the idea behind the sheep/goats is that doing something to the poor is doing something unto Jesus, then there’s a combination between the two. If you love what God creates, you can love God Himself, because what God creates reflects who God is. If we have someone who demonstrated by his/her life that they did care for the poor, and thus Jesus, do we really expect Jesus to turn around and say that even though the person did these things unto Jesus, Jesus will then cast them into everlasting punishment?
“For both the Christian and the non-Christian, the intent/motivation is important, and will show whether it is “from God” or not.” (Brad)
This actually further muddies the water of the debate over a non-believer and Christian doing good – now we add another measurement – intention – and this one no one can possibly know about the person doing the ‘good deed’ (unless we can read minds and hearts?). Basically, you have made it impossible to make a call on whether someone is doing a good deed or not.
Let me simplify this – instead of adding burden to burden in this definition of a ‘good deed’. Is caring for an orphan something we would label a ‘good deed’? If yes, then no matter who does it – they should be ascribed the descriptor also. We can go into intent – but the only intent that really matters is ‘is the action called good?’ Then it must be from God – who is the author of good.
“Reformed Christianity can absolutely affirm that non-Christians can do acts of good, and those acts can even be “from God.” However, this does NOT mean that they are followers/believers of God” (Brad)
Reformed Christianity needs more reform in my opinion – their definition is all about splitting hairs on something they have no right to – someone’s personal faith. They affirm a non-believer can do an act ‘from God’…then they say ‘well he/she is not a believer’. This is both illogical and in my opinion, very made up.
If a bird sings a certain song – well we know it’s a certain type of bird. If a cat hunts a certain way – well we know it’s a specific type of cat. If an ant builds their home in a certain shape – we know what type of ant this is. If someone follows the 2 commandments – love God and neighbor – what would we call them?
“Remember, the SECOND greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. The first is to love God. They are not one and the same.” (Brad)
They are seen as one and the same by certain people in the NT:
“for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8)
“and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ” YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Romans 13:9)
“For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” (Galatians 5:14)
“If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well” (James 2:8)
“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12)
In 5 different places the idea of treating another person in a loving manner is the summation and fulfillment of the law (and even the prophets). This includes Paul, James, and Jesus. It seems loving your neighbor fulfills the Law – which is given by God – which in turn means – to follow those teachings is to honor God (love God).