According to the Apostle Paul one of the great implications of the death of Christ is that it resulted in the creation of one new humanity. He writes on this subject in Ephesians 2.11-22. In an address to Gentile Christians he reminds them that they were Gentiles “in the flesh” (τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί) known by their status as being uncircumcised (therefore, not in covenant with God, v. 11). Gentiles were separated from Christ (as he walked on earth before the crucifixion maybe?), alienated from Israel (the people of God), and estranged from the covenants given to Israel. This resulted in a state of hopelessness (v. 12).
In the death (blood) of Christ Paul finds the solution to the Gentiles being outsiders (v. 13). Why would the blood of Christ provide entrance for Gentiles into the people of God? Well, in Christ the “dividing wall of hostility” (this may be language derived from the idea of the various courts of the Temple?) has been torn down. For Paul the death of Christ somehow removed whatever it was that demanded that Jews stand afar from Gentiles. Jesus himself is considered the “peace” that unites the two groups (this may be a jab at the idea of a Pax Romana, v. 14). He indicates that what divided Jews and Gentiles was “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” which seems to mean (in the language of James D.G. Dunn) that particular commandments prevented Jews and Gentiles from intermingling, but in Christ those laws have been fulfilled so that Jews can mix with Gentiles now. In other words, Jews will not violate their covenant with God by being with Gentiles because Gentiles cannot make them unholy.
Why is this so? It may have to do with the language of Deuteronomy 21.23 that one who hangs on a tree adsorbs the curse of God. Since Jesus was raised from the dead as God’s sign of approval this means that Christ’s death somehow serves as the punishment from violating the Law of God that made the Jews distinct from Gentiles. Now that the Law has delivered it’s punishment in the death of Christ there is no punishment to fear. This is a substitutionary atonement of sorts. We know from Galatians 3.10 that Paul saw failing to obey the Law as resulting in a curse on the people. In Christ this curse has been delivered as the punishment of “sin and death” (something he discusses in Romans 1 and 8) found its ultimate victim in Christ (a Christus Victor atonement of sorts), but Christ’s resurrection allowed him to transcend “the Law of Sin and Death” because he had accessed a higher Law, that “of the Spirit of Life” as Romans 8.1-17 argues. So maybe Paul had these ideas in mind?
What is amazing about this is that Paul understands the death of Christ as creating “one new man” or “one new humanity” (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον). Again, Paul mentions the “peace” that his death created. It seems that while the death of Christ created peace between God and humanity we find here that it creates peace between Jews and Gentiles (v. 15).
The death of Christ resulted in humans being reconciled to God and humans being reconciled to each other, specifically Jews and Gentiles. Through his crucifixion he was killing to enmity and hatred between Jews and Gentiles (διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ, v. 16)!
Jesus’ life and death proclaimed a peace treaty for all (v. 17). Why? As Paul argues in Romans 8 the death of Christ gave us access to the Spirit of God and the Father through the Spirit (v. 18). Anyone who has the Spirit is brought into the household/family of God (vv. 19-21). In Christ we become a Temple for the Spirit (v. 22).
This is an amazing and complex passage. It sounds a lot like Romans 8 where the Spirit of God adopts us giving us resurrection life so that we can overcome death like Christ overcame death, but the emphasis is on how the death of Christ included the “killing” of those things that kept Jews and Gentiles from being in one family.
the archives near Emmaus 
Well this view (of one new humanity) is certainly a popular one – but unfortunately it must ignore too much scripture to be true. I don’t agree with your reading ..
OK….
Sorry that was terse – compare the joining of two groups in [Eph 2:14], for example), with [Eze 37:17,19] which prophesied forward, exactly the circumstance Paul was describing …
How do we know Ezekiel applies here? Because [Eze 37:9] is the forward seeing of the coming of the Holy Spirit …. because [Eze 37:23-25] is the forward seeing of the Messiah and His relationship to his people … because [Eze 37:24] specifically mentions the Messiah as shepherd to His people (which is what Paul is describing) and because [Eze 37:25] says this Messiah would be everlasting (as Christ is).
If the mystery Paul is describing in Ephesians is not [Eze 37] fulfilled, one of the two of them must be wrong because there is no reasonable way of missing the parallels biblically (without ignoring one whole testament).
I don’t see where your disagreement lies though.
In general – I disagree with the celebration of the whole ‘brotherhood’ of man thing. going on. Before Christ we were ‘one’: We were ‘one’ in sin, and our capacity to sin. We were ‘one’ in on our path to destruction. There are many ways were were ‘one’.
Representations like this, suggest that Israel is being joined to the world. That’s not what Christ’s mission accomplished ([Matt 15:24]) rather Christ’s mission solidified for all of eternity, that there is a divide in the path, with one path wide and the other narrow.
Not only but to see Ephesians as the dissolution of God’s hedge around Israel (as is subtly being suggested), it would presuppose modern knowledge of biblical people’s. As in our discussion about Galatians, about there being non-Israelite Jews, and non-Jewish Israelites – clearly this isn’t the strong suit for most Christian scholars.
While I do agree that there is a sense in which all humanity can be considered a “brotherhood” or a “family” in that we share our basic, natural humanity that isn’t what I was addressing at all. This doesn’t suggest that “Israel is being joined to the world” but that Gentiles are being adopted into the family of Abraham, which is the opposite of what you are suggesting I said.
Brian, I’ll add one last bit of fuel to the fire:
The word ‘Gentiles’ is a made up word – invented. The Greek has no such word. The Greek speaks of ‘nations’ (with nations in Greek being ἔθνος (G1484)). I don’t dispute you’ll find it in your English bibles (perhaps not so much in the ISV), you’ll even find it capitalized showing how important it is, but is that how Paul would have understood it?
The word ἔθνος from the Greek has only ever been translated to be ‘Gentiles’ in exactly 93 instances. In all other ancient Greek text it is translated differently, which shows that this Greek work has been given ‘theological meaning’ that does not reflect it’s original.
Linguists would agree, though theologians would not.
That doesn’t add anything to the fire. Even if we use the longer phrase “the nations” instead of the shorter summary “Gentiles” it changes nothing in this passage. There is Israel, there are those who are a part of all the other nations who are not Israel, and in Christ those who are outsiders are adopted into the family. Pretty simple.
Sure it does. Find any NT verse with the Greek word ἔθνος and and supposing actual Greek meaning translate it as ‘nation(s)’ rather than ‘Gentile(s)’. You’ll find all theology presupposing ‘Gentiles’, falls down.
Here’s some examples:
[Eph 2:11] becomes “Therefore remember that at one time you were nations in the flesh, called “the un-circumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands …”
[Eph 3:6] becomes “For this reason I, Paul, prisoner for the Messiah Jesus for the sake of you nations,…”
[Eph 3:8] is the same, but the whole tone of [Eph 4:17] changes making it seem as though Paul is talking to the elect as a Kingdom “Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the other nations do, in the futility of their minds.”
Beyond Ephesians there are spectacular verses such as [Romans 11:25] “I will not have you ignorant of this mystery, bothers, lest you be wise in your own conceits; *a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the ‘multitude of nations’ comes in.” (In reference to the Abrahamic covenant [Gen 17:4].
Prophetic understanding is clarified [Luke 21:24] “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be tread upon by nations, until the season of nations is fulfilled.” (in reference to [Dan 12:7]).
It certainly changes the tone of Ephesians.
Actually, no, I don’t see any difference at all. Maybe you had something in your mind when you saw the word “Gentiles” that changed when you started reading “nations” but I have always read the word Gentiles as a summary statement for the nations. I don’t see what you are seeing.
You don’t see it? (Lets work with ‘nation’s’ for a bit, rather than ‘Gentiles’ and ask some questions):
Q1. Which nations were ἀπαλλοτριόω (apallotrioō G526) estranged from the Commonwealth of Israel [Eph 2:12] and excluded citizenship?
(Def’n ‘estrange’ (verb): to be removed from, or sent away, to be made alien ..)
Notice – you cannot estrange unrelated things ..
Would you say this estrangement was the prodigal ‘son’ (who had shared the inheritance), or would you say some un-related neighbour (who never had any part in the inheritance)?
Q2. Speaking of inheritance [Eph 1:11-12,14,18] what inheritance is Paul speaking of, the one the prodigal ‘son’ abandoned [Psa 78:71] or some other?
Q3. In [Eph 1:11-12], Paul is speaking to the Ephesians about nations and inheritance obviously, but is he be speaking about the same things mentioned in [Psa 79:1] and [Mic 7:14,18] or something else?
Q4. [Eph 2.5] says ” .. even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with the Messiah— by grace you have been saved”. Would you say this is or is NOT the fulfillment of [Eze 37:4-14]?
Q5. Given verses such as [Psa 147:19-20][Isa 63:7-9][Jer 10:16][Jer 51:19] is God still the great equalizer, destroying the hedge that protected his vineyard, given that the last time he did this, it was done in anger as a punishment [Isa 5:5]?
You don’t need to answer. Clearly it is worth being careful though because God is jealous of his inheritance [Mark 12:7][Matt 21:38][Luke 20:14]. When Paul references [Eph 1:11-18] we need to resolve if he being consistent with [Romans 9:4] given [Eph 1:5] (and [Gal 9:4])? Likewise, when Paul speaks of redemption in [Eph 1:7] is he speaking in a scriptural sense [Psa 130:7-8] (let’s not forget the reference from the road to Emmaus [Luke 24:21]).
If we use ‘Gentile or ‘nations’, our answer changes greatly. You and I would answer the above questions quite differently (thus showing a different understanding of Paul’s letter)
Also consider the meaning of φραγμός (phragmos G5418) in [Eph 2:14] as a Hebrew idiom with [Isa 5:5] previously mentioned rather than how it is normally translated. (This is not a coincidence)
Andrew
What is the point you are trying to make? If you were to write a thesis statement to plainly state why you think “nations” makes a drastic difference from “Gentiles” what would that sentence say?
I’m with Brian on this one, I’m uncertain to what’s being argued here— how ‘gentile’ juxtaposes with ‘nations,’ and why this difference matters (supposing there is some sort of meaningful difference). Typically, when ‘nation’ or ‘nations’ is seen pre-modern, it is going to refer to a ‘people group that speak a certain tongue and have a certain heritage;’ and often times, it seems that when ‘nation’ is used, it is meant for those who are non-Jews.
Barobin
That’s how I’ve read it.
Brian and barobin, I’m sorry the point was not clear. If I make a point (citing my own wisdom) it is defective and subject to question.
I believe in the perspicuity of scripture even if it is often misunderstood (though you may not believe that I do). Therefore when I make points that are apt to be controversial, I let the bible speak for itself, so that ‘seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand if their hearts have grown dull’.
The Messiah’s actions plainly testified to his identity, the words of scripture plainly do as well about His bride. They sit before us – we must choose to believe what they say plainly or the meaning we impart to them and discern the difference. If you have confirmed that I quoted scripture honestly above, and feel their meaning remains veiled, I’ll speak more plainly:
These words matters in this letter precisely because it determines who we see as the audience of Paul’s letter, and how this letter amplifies all other scripture (or whether it stands alone).
The ‘calling’ Paul is talking about in [Eph 4:1-3] is a clue. Our understanding of what he means by ‘calling you have received’ is function of whether or not we are speaking to ‘Gentiles’ or some particular nations. The question is plainly whether or not Paul’s reference was specific to Ephesians or the same found elsewhere.
Therefore, if one wishes to understand what I see in Ephesians, answer the question “Throughout the entire body of scripture, is there a common and consistent reference to God’s calling to which the Ephesians had been called? If so, should our reading of Ephesians be influenced by it, and incorporate it? (This letter suggests plainly that the ‘Ephesians’ were aware of the calling [Eph 4:1] God had called them to. Can you see when God had done this? (hint: obviously before Paul wrote the letter; even before Christ’s birth and resurrection, or else why would Paul mention that the mystery had been hidden for ages [Eph 3:9], so how were they aware of it?)
We consider ‘the body of the Messiah’ a Christian theme, and Ephesians plays no small role establishing this in our Christian lexicon. However before it was written in Greek and seen as a Christian theme, was it not first a Hebrew one? Anytime a New Testament author quotes an Old Testament passage, it is wise to consider whether the original Old Testament context sheds any light on the use of the quote in the New Testament. Therefore, another question that must be addressed in Ephesians is the question about the the entire bible’s treatment of the ‘body of Christ’ and its specificity in Ephesians. Look again at [Eze 37:4-14] and re-consider the meaning of [Eph 2:4-10] answering the question: Are these related descriptions of the body? If so, what does the original Old Testament context [Eze 37:4-14] tell us about Paul’s letter to the Ephesians?
Paul’s practical advice on holy living is not unrelated either, but I’ve said enough. If this Ephesians connection to the rest of the bible is a figment of my imagination, we can safely believe these are Ephesians specific reference; and can safely ignore all other scripture for context then; except this poses the problem – why are we as Christian’s interested in the letter then?).
Without providing direct answers to the above questions, I cannot be more plan. Having quoted scripture though, I believe scripture provides them plainly if one reads the reference.
So what is the point you are making?
@barobin: You said typically, when ‘nation’ or ‘nations’ is seen pre-modern, it is going to refer to a ‘people group that speak a certain tongue and have a certain heritage;’ and often times, it seems that when ‘nation’ is used, it is meant for those who are non-Israelites (changed ‘Jews’ to ‘Israelites for correctness).
This is a presupposition only. Linguistically the Greek word ἔθνος is completely neutral to whether or not one was an Israelite. What your presupposing is that a non-theological Greek word ἔθνος, was really a word loaded with meaning. Paul either used the word as the Greeks would use the word, or he gave it new meaning. You presuppose the latter.
One cannot lose citizenship in (be alienated) from a commonwealth one was never part of – therefore [Eph 2:12] suggests that the word ἔθνος is specifically talking about Israelites. Furthermore, such a presupposition shows an unfortunate lack of awareness that there were non-Jewish Israelites who had become pagans, uncircumcised in hearts and ears [Jer 9:26][Ezce 28:10][Acts 7:51].
Here are further example of where this presupposition breaks down: The adelphos (G80) spoken of in [Acts 15:23] were descendants of Abraham but of the ‘nations’ in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Look also at the OT quotes being cited: how does [Matt 4:15] compare to [Isa 9:1] saying the Israelite nations Zebulun and Naphtali; how about [Matt 12:18-21] citing [Isa 42:1-4]; and so on?
Simply looking at OT quotes within the NT shows that the Greek word ἔθνος was not only applied equally to Israelite nations as pagan nations, but also that where it’s meaning in the OT was plain, has been translated incorrectly into the NT. (Shouldn’t we at least make some marginal effort to ensure that where NT citations of the OT exist, they actually say the same thing?)
No, I think your presupposition either needs more support, or abandonment.
Brian:
More interesting is why you want to know what point he is making.
You know, I don’t have any organized thoughts on this, but I think the new humanity is related to the basic universalism in Paul’s thought. I’m not sure whether Paul ever consciously thought in terms of universalism, because I don’t think his goal was to define rules for individual salvation, but his writings carry a lot of points in that direction.
My point?
First, tell me, if [ Ephesians 2:11-21] is [Jeremiah 50:3-6]? with the alienation stemming from assimilating with the Babylon of her day (Rome), Jeremiah prophesying against all four spawns of Babylon)
If [Habakkuk 2:4] knew that the ‘righteous should live by faith’ [Rom 1:17] and saw the same demised set for the beast [Jeremiah 50:3-6] did, but sealed up his knowledge until the appointed time [Habakkuk 2:3], is that time Paul’s [Eph 3:3,5]?
Otherwise, if you cannot, I have no point.
(@Victor: because he is patient – which is a Christ-like quality)
Victor
For the simple reason that he stated, “I don’t agree with your reading.” After this he has left many comments with long list of proof-texts while saying nothing substantial about these texts, the text of focus, or his statement.
Andrew
Indeed, I am beginning to think you haven’t had a point to make this entire thread of comments. While your random cross-canonical proof-texting may make sense to you it seems like an aimless whirlwind of copy-and-pasted notes from some study you did on this subject that you keep tossing into the comments in expectation that what you are trying to say will magically dawn on me. It doesn’t.
I see that Jeremiah 50 has to do with the people in exile, but if you are sensing a connection between this passage and Ephesians 2 then all you have to do is explain it which you have not done. In other words, you need to show that Paul has this passage in mind as he makes his argument for the inclusion of “the nations” into the new family of Messiah.
Brian: “I am beginning to think you haven’t had a point to make this entire thread of comments.”
Indeed.
@Brian if you haven’t bothered to read any of the quotes – yes they would seem random. If you trouble yourself to read them though, and understand their context – they are anything but random. I don’t do aimless whirlwind copy-and-pastes even if I do expect you to understand.
Take [ Ephesians 2:11-21] and [Jeremiah 50:3-6]. Are they related or not?
Do you see [Eze 37] in [Eph 2] or don’t you.
If there is a relationship – put two and two together, reading the OT quotes in context and recognize its audience (as well as its promise) and develop a theology that is consistent and reliant between texts. If you don’t see, a particular, ask about it (rather than simply implying I haven’t exposed my point or that I have none).
This whole time I’ve been levelling an accusation that the theology of Ephesians you’ve represented in this post injects a vacant doctrine into Christian thinking precisely because it fails to recognize its relationship to, and fulfilment of what should be seen before; precisely because we disconnect it’s biblical audience from their foundation. This is not the first time the ‘Ephesians’ have been prophesied about or to.
I’m not going to speak more plainly where insight seeks a substitute.
OK, Andrew.
As a side note, how fun do you think Jeremiah was to hang out with?
If as an outsider I am permitted to comment:
Andrew: Your scholarship is impressive even if it may be borrowed. Obviously you have an intense investment in seeking the truth as you understand it… but it is very easy to become lost in the details without realizing it. That is one of my problems as a preacher–not being able to focus on ONE CLEAR MESSAGE, and stay on focus.
Brian and others have been patient in trying to identify the “thesis” of your argument, and as I rad through all this thread, I too found it very difficult to extract from your extended references. My first impression was that your objection was based on some fundamental presuppositions, and I would like to suggest that this is where the true basis of your disagreement truly lies.
If this comment is accepted, I will return to present my analysis supporting this suggestion.
Brian’s argument is that Paul understands humanity to have been divided and at war with ourselves and with God. I think Andrew agrees on that, but differs on how and when this division occurred. There are innumerable examples to illustrate this enmity and division amongst ourselves–the Tower of Babel being archetypal; but we could also see this in Cain killing Abel, Jacob vs. Esau, etc.
There is room for theological argument as to how God wants it to be. Does God’s preferential option for the poor—favouring the weak; liberating the captives; younger sons and prodigals—mean that the emphasis is on those God welcomes and those God rejects; or is it really about emphasizing that God is NOT pleased about our very human tendencies to have enmity with one another, and justify our hatred with creeds that support a status quo of the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable? How we answer this huge question (or multiplicity of questions) will depend more on our established belief system regarding the equality of persons and the exclusiveness of salvation in Christ.
This leads me to Andrew’s primary objection, which seemed to be that interpreting Paul’s words as God’s manifesto regarding the true universality of all people (and even of religious impulses and practices as flawed but similar attempts for us to relate to the Divine/ONE GOD), is contradicted by other scriptures, and therefore cannot be as absolute as Brian was suggesting. Perhaps so; Perhaps not.
Before you respond, Andrew, please hear me out, and focus your answer on the summary, not the details.
Brian seems to be coming from a place in which our heritage as Christians (I am a Christian minister), is to see our faith as a grafting of our OUTSIDER status into the established INSIDER status of the Hebrews, the Chosen People.
BRIAN: “This doesn’t suggest that “Israel is being joined to the world” but that Gentiles are being adopted into the family of Abraham.”
If we are to honour some of the most fundamental truths about the Hebrew Scriptures, we must try to interpret from a Jewish context. There can be no doubt that this was the context that applied to Jesus, and to Paul, in how they spoke, and expected their audiences to understand as well.
Some Christians may argue that Israel is excluded from true relationship with God by having rejected Jesus (I am under the impression this is Andrew’s view, more or less), but that is a theological presupposition which will fundamentally alter how a believer interprets scripture. Paul was really trying to stretch God’s covenant with Israel—including himself, a devout Jew—to include all believers in Jesus, without abandoning those who had not yet understood the identity of Jesus. Our scriptures were shaped by the growing enmity between Jews who rejected Jewish-Christians and vice versa, but that is not what Paul is saying here. Through our glass, darkly, we are trying to probe the mystery: does God love everyone MORE than our settled faiths will allow us to see? Even the Pauline writings differ amongst themselves. When scriptures contradict each other, on what basis are we to CHOOSE which we honour as more authoritative, permitting us to qualify or disregard other scriptures?
There are innumerable Hebrew Scriptures condemning Israel/Judah, and as many again promising hellish wrath to come upon all nations who have abused Israel and Judah. Which trumps which?
Brian, honouring the presumption that God was the GOD of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob first, argues with Paul that, “The death of Christ resulted in humans being reconciled to God and humans being reconciled to each other, specifically Jews and Gentiles.”
Andrew, on the other hand, disagrees “with the celebration of the whole ‘brotherhood’ of man thing… suggest[ing] that Israel is being joined to the world [in right/saved relationship with God?]… That’s not what Christ’s mission accomplished… Christ’s mission solidified for all of eternity, that there is a divide in the path, with one path wide and the other narrow.”
These represent two fundamentally-opposed theological presuppositions. Andrews is arguing—with Evangelicals generally—that “I am the Way…” trumps all else; but how then can we explain the predominant emphasis of Jesus’ teaching, healings, sayings, which constantly challenged his judgmental peers to SOFTEN their hard reliance on the literalism of scripture, and embrace a Spirit of inclusion, in which we are to love all and judge none?
It seems to me that this entire argument pivots around how—and on what basis—Brian’s position and Andrew’s position are at odds with one another.
In a late post, Andrew says, “I believe in the perspicuity of scripture… Therefore when I make points that are apt to be controversial, I let the bible speak for itself, so that ‘seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand if their hearts have grown dull’.”
I suggest that this is the basis of Andrew’s objections, but that it is not founded in the inherent truth, or prophetic insight of scripture, but rather in WHICH scriptures and interpretations Andrew honours as “trumping” others, including “ the popular interpretation of Paul’s thesis.”
If we strive to respect our differences, Andrew’s position is rooted in a different set of basic theological assumptions–that Jesus is THE ONE AND ONLY WAY, and how that plays out, in what I have called an “exclusionary” Christianity. Perhaps he is right? Perhaps not. Let God be the judge.
Personally, I am loathe to even seem to endorse such a view, but I fight to keep myself inclusive even of those whose interpretation of the gospel leads them to judge, chide, or despise others. My view is that God’s intent, through Jesus, was to “draw the circle wide… and wider still,” recommending an inclusive Christianity that risks being too inclusive rather than err by excluding a single sheep from the enfolding arms of God’s love.
This is the view I find in Paul. As Saul he had been a profoundly judgmental and exclusionary Jew, but on the road to Damascus his eyes were opened and what he saw was that Jesus loves everyone—even those Saul had been taught to despise as an intense and dedicated scholar of Torah. For Saul, repentance was about ceasing to hold Andrew’s point of view, and reimagine the relationship all people have with God and one another, who are made ONE IN CHRIST.
Andrew, your quotation of “those who have eyes but do not see” was petty, because in the same breath you are claiming that the truth is inherent, yet also hidden to those not gifted by the Spirit to see the truth. If true—a very, very dangerous theological precept—than who is to say which of us sees rightly?
Of course scriptures includes many examples of such condemnations of those who disagree with the speaker. Even Jesus is credited with saying many judgmental and even spiteful things; and it is our nature to do so when others fail to support the certainties on which our own sense of security rests. But who is to say which of us are seeing the truth, and which of us are reinforcing the false truths we have learned to defend fiercely? Who is to say which of us is closer to the truth about how God would have us be with one another?
Andrew, let me commend this path. Hear me with open ears and a welcoming heart. If you are not persuaded to change your view by what Brian and others have to offer, at least be open to it, and beware to holding fast to certainties you self-reinforce; It is only by knowjng in advance what you believe to be true that your truths can be absolute and inviolable.
Of course we must all live according to what we believe to be true, and so try to respect I respect your path and judge myself in the wrong when I fail to filter my responses through the caritas of Christ. But do not be so quick to condemn others who see and walk a different path. The Pharisee did not see himself as Jesus say him; mores the pity. He was blinded by his certainties, and thus deaf to what Jesus had to teach. That is whom Saul had been; but God opened his eyes, and he changed. Alleluia.
Tread gently, my brother. Judgment day may be wrathful; Perhaps it will be a narrow gate with few sheep and billions of goats. Or perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised to find heaven crowded with goats and repentant prodigals, and judgment day mostly like each of us lining up for a cuddle with Santa, and God’s wrath will flare only for those who have rejected the Spirit of love.
And if I am mistaken. So be it. if in the end, you are with Lazarus and I am not, have pity, for I will have sinned out of love and inclusion, rather than judgment, exclusion, and sanctioned hatred.
In my final edit of the post just made, I garbled one paragraph. Please replace it with the following:
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT regarding how Brian’s position and Andrew’s position are at odds with one another pivots around their (differing) interpetations of this question. Is THE WAY exclusive, or inclusive? When you begin in a different place, each of us cannot help but interpret things differently.