To be upfront, I am not denying the existence of God. However, I must admit that I have never felt His grace. Therefore, I cannot say that I am a person of faith. Even so, I have always been fascinated by the subject of theology, specifically as it relates to Christianity. I mean, I did grow up during a time when children still had to learn the Lord’s Prayer. Many years later, I still know it by heart. Nevertheless, what I learned in school about religion was never really convincing to me.
Primarily, what makes religion unconvincing to me is the forbidding of interpretation outside of prevailing dogmatic orthodoxy. In my opinion, any belief system that cannot be questioned can’t be legitimate. The predominant lack of openness to exegetical reinterpretation has always been a point of contention for me since it discourages critical examination or adaptation to evolving perspectives. But should I be surprised? Religion has never been about checks and balances. Rather, it has always relied on blind faith, demanding unquestioning obedience to the word of God as written in the Holy Bible. Unfortunately, for one who has not been touched by His grace, blind faith remains elusive to me, despite the best efforts of a religiously observant school system and community.
In any event, I have been exploring religion on my own well into my adult life. In the beginning, I must admit that I was trying to disprove the existence of God. But as I started to dive deeper into the subject, I became more open-minded towards religion and Christianity. In fact, I began to realize that religion and Christianity can be beneficial to Western society. And I suppose, if I started to immerse myself into Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or whatever belief system, I would feel the same way too.
But being one who was raised in the Western Christian tradition, I can only comment on Christianity. And in that capacity, all I can say is that the Holy Bible cannot be the word of an infallible God, given how flawed it is. The Holy Bible should be perfect. As such, I cannot accept the Holy Bible, in its entirety, forms the basis of Christian belief. The inconsistencies are innumerable.
Naturally for the faithful, who unquestionably believe that the Holy Bible is infallible, what I am asserting ranges from ignorance to blasphemy. But hear me out. Now, I am not some skeptic who believes in conspiracy theories. Nor am I looking for proof in the form of God almighty descending from the Heavens telling me that the Holy Bible is completely unerring and factual. I merely look at the world from the perspective of history. From that viewpoint, one must address the problem inherent to the assemblage of the Holy Bible, from an oral tradition recited from rabbi to rabbi or priests to priests, then translated from ancient Hebrew to Greek to Latin or Aramaic to Latin by theologians, then transcribed by scribes holed up in monastic cubicles – all with questionable memory and dogmatic intent over many generations. The involvement of all these different participants assembling the Holy Bible throughout the ages is a recipe for mistakes.
Personally, I believe it is erroneous for anyone to think that such an imperfect assemblage of text, filled with mistakes and inconsistencies, can be representative of the infallible word of God. Given the mistakes, I believe that the Holy Bible can be subject to reinterpretation since we cannot reliably take at face value that what was written in scripture was accurately remembered or translated. As such, the Holy Bible must be free for critical examination and adaptation to new interpretations.
To begin our reexamination, we can start from the beginning with the Old Testament. Essentially, it explains to the people of Israel, Judah, and Canaan (hereafter referred to as the Jews) who they are and instructs them on how to live as a Jew (in following the Mosaic Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). In addition, the Old Testament helps Jews rationalize why they have been enslaved for so many generations. Last, the Old Testament prophesizes to Jews what to look forward to in the future, given their history to date largely defined by slavery. And that future? It is when their Messiah, a warrior king, rises to defeat all the enemies of the Jewish people to establish the Kingdom of Israel.
For Jews, knowing where they came from, knowing how they must live, and knowing what they can look forward to in the future in the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel is worthwhile. But for Gentiles, how is any of that applicable? Our history wasn’t defined by slavery. Our Messiah is not a warrior king. And our end goal isn’t the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. Perhaps knowing how to live as a Jew is the principal reason for Christians to accept the Old Testament? I mean, Christ lived as a Jew, so perhaps Christians are also supposed to live like Jews and follow the same Mosaic Laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy?
However, the New Testament would say otherwise. In the text, Christians have been excused from living as Jews. As stated in Acts 15:19-20, Gentiles did not need to follow the full Mosaic law to be part of the Christian faith. And later, Paul in Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16 also reaffirmed this by stating that salvation comes through faith and not through following Jewish customs. Moreover, there is also the New Covenant argument, in which the Death and Resurrection of Christ inaugurated a new covenant, thus making the old requirements of Jewish Law unnecessary – like the dietary restriction on eating pork in Leviticus 11:7-8. The argument of the New Covenant can be found in 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Galatians 3:24-25.
Having established that Gentiles are excused from following Jewish Laws in the New Testament, what reason is there for Gentiles to accept the Old Testament? After all, Gentiles only need to believe in God, through Christ, to be saved. Well, Paul did provide an explanation in Galatians 2:11-14, in which he stated that Gentiles should follow the Old Testament to show and promote unity and respect with the Jews during those early days of conversion. Unfortunately, I have never found that argument convincing. What would be the rationale for early Christians to do that? How would doing that bring the faithful closer to God and salvation?
Using history again as a place to start, a more likely explanation is that the nascent Christian ministry of Paul needed to piggyback off Judaism to appear legitimate to early potential converts, only because Judaism, presented in the Old Testament as the belief system that Christ started with, had been in existence for many centuries. At the time, Christianity was regarded as a cult, with believers of Christ rounded up for subversion. So, if Christianity was bundled with Judaism, which was tolerated by the Roman authority, Paul had a better chance of converting Gentiles to Christianity. Clearly, this is a logical course of action, except for one small detail. Christ was clearly in opposition to conventional Judaism.
Christ frequently challenged conventional rabbinical duties by prioritizing mercy over strict legalism followed by the religious establishment. He healed on the Sabbath, forgave sins directly, dined with sinners, questioned purity laws, taught with authority rather than tradition, and openly criticized religious leaders for hypocrisy. In fact, he even performed his rabbinical services for free, as stated in Matthew 10:8, where he said, “Freely you have received; freely give,” which emphasized his teachings should not be sold. These actions defied the traditional rabbinical role, which emphasized strict adherence to Jewish law, ritual purity, and established interpretations rather than direct personal authority or challenges to religious leaders.
Had Christ not died, He would have eventually been more explicit in declaring His departure from Judaic orthodoxy, which His Apostles would have recorded in the Gospels. Splitting from Judaism would have been a natural progression, stemming from His efforts to reform Judaism, which He saw as a demonstration of what He regarded as His fulfillment of Jewish Laws. However, the resistance that He experienced from the rabbinical establishment made reforms impossible and would have eventually forced Him to split from rabbinical orthodoxy. Of course, neither reform nor the split ever happened. Instead, the chief priests and elders gave Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Christ, leading to His arrest and crucifixion, and ending any prospect of reforms. It should be noted that Christ had to be betrayed, arrested, and crucified in order for him to atone for the sins of humanity.
Clearly, Christ would have eventually rejected Judaism, had He not been crucified. Because of that, the next logical conclusion would be His dismissal of the Old Testament from His ministry. Since Christ would have dismissed the Old Testament, Christians should also dismiss the Old Testament too. As such, Christians only need to accept the New Testament. Having established that the Old Testament is no longer relevant to Christian belief, the starting point for Christians is the New Testament. So where do we start from the New Testament?
Obviously, we begin with the life of Christ, as presented in the Gospels. There, the teachings and examples of Christ can be summed up rather easily. Love from love thy neighbor. Forgiveness from turn the other cheek. Fairness from judge not lest ye be judged. And mercy from let he who has not sinned cast out the first stone. That in a nutshell is the entirety of Christ’s teaching – love, forgiveness, fairness, and mercy. The end.
From the perspective of projecting importance, the briefness of Christ’s teaching presents a problem. First, it seems very unsatisfactory. And second, it seems very incomplete. In the New Testament, the life of Christ and his teachings and examples are only found in the Gospel – four books – of which the retelling of Christ’s life is essentially repeated. For people of faith, they would obviously want more. Unfortunately, Christ did not live long enough to leave behind a body of work for future generations to study. Instead, all we have are the four books in the Gospels. This leaves us so many unanswered questions, which is the purpose of the Pauline Epistles and the Johannine, Petrine, and General Epistles.
The questions left unanswered can be separated into two sections. One section dealt with missionary work in spreading the gospels to the Gentiles, which Paul addressed in the Pauline Epistles. There he dealt with questions from Gentiles about suffering, salvation, and the end of time. The other section dealt with questions from believers about spiritual guidance, which Peter and John addressed in the Petrine and Johannine Epistles, and James and Jude in the General Epistles. There they dealt with questions of faith, perseverance, and discernment.
What does that all mean? Essentially, Christ left us too early, so his Apostles had to address all the questions of spirituality that Christ left unanswered. But unfortunately, unlike Christ, His Apostles were not infallible. That means that all their interpretation in continuing Christ’s ministry as recorded in the Epistles may not have accurately reflected Christ’s belief. For that reason, all the Apostles’ interpretation can be subject to scrutiny. Moreover, because Christ’s Apostles’ were forced to address all the questions of spirituality that Christ left unanswered, the Apostles left future theologians a precedence to augur what Christ’s would have done, in predicting the unrevealed word of God. Given the precedence of Christ’s Apostles’ continuation of His ministry and the fallibility of His Apostles’ interpretation of His teaching, I too can justifiably interpret Christ’s teaching, for the sake of critical examination or adaptation to evolving perspectives.
So, what do I believe? Christ believed in cooperation, sharing, and self-sacrifice. He believed in doing good and doing right. He believed in forgiveness when one makes a transgression. And in the end, he believed that all will be saved, including sinners as stated in Matthew 9:12-13. The end again.
This depiction of Christ is inspirational – even to one without faith. To live by the words of Christ can be a life worth living, especially if we all shed the vestiges of the Old Testament. And even when the Gospels have reached their limits to guide us further, I believe a person true in faith can fill in the blanks and become as Christ had intended. The love, fairness, forgiveness, and mercy that Christ had gifted us is in our hearts and would therefore provide us the guidance to do what he would have done himself. If nothing else, I believe this is what Christ would have expected, which at best can only be inferred from his Apostles Peter and John in the Petrine and Johannine Epistles. 1 John 2:6 states, "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." This suggests that those who truly belong to Christ will innately act as He would. And 1 Peter 2:21 states, "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." This implies that believers, through faith, will naturally embody Christ’s actions. In that way, I believe people true of faith would not need proof in scripture for guidance, for Christ would already be running in their veins. The Glory of God does not need verification and is self-evident. In that way, I inadvertently live my life as prescribed by Christ and his example. Perhaps in that way, I am a person of faith. Still, I have yet to feel His grace.
But it is difficult to feel His grace, given the paradox of the exegetical dogma prevalent in the United States. On one hand, it embraces Christ and all that He embodies. But at the same time, it employs the righteousness of the Old Testament God to justify its opposition towards the tenets of Christ’s teaching in love, fairness, mercy, and forgiveness to all of humanity. Of course, it is understandable why this is the case. One only needs to refer to Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor’s Tale to understand this. Even the Israelites understood this. Christ our Lord is not a warrior king, for His kingdom is in paradise after the end of days. As such, Christ would sooner sacrifice his life for his enemies than fight them, since life on Earth is immaterial in the greater context of everlasting paradise. In contrast, the Messiah of the Old Testament would be a warrior king, and his kingdom is on Earth. He would never sacrifice his life for his enemies. Instead, He will conquer them through divine warfare, lead God's army to victory, and execute judgment on them. This is the example that the United States follows in its effort to project strength and righteousness, which is the exact opposite of Christ’s teachings and examples.
As you can see, I cannot reconcile the two opposing differences between the Old Testament and New Testament, unless I practice some form of exegetical acrobatics to find some common ground. However, any such attempt always ends up torturous and disingenuous, which I cannot accept. In the end, reason has compelled me to dismiss the Old Testament in favor of accepting the New Testament, culturally speaking of course.
Perhaps this is where my journey has led me – to a belief system that exists in tension, neither fully embraced nor entirely rejected. I cannot accept the Holy Bible as divine writ, yet I find myself drawn to the compassion of Christ’s teachings. I dismiss the Old Testament’s unforgiving God, yet I understand why nations, even those claiming Christian identity, cling to His righteous authority. The Christianity I critique, and the Christ I admire seem to belong to different religions altogether – which they kind of do – one being Judaism (which it works as Judaism without criticism) and one being Christianity.
And so, I remain suspended between skepticism and reverence. If faith cannot be questioned, then I have none. But if faith can be questioned, then perhaps I have been practicing it all along. For now, I will hold to the words I learned as a child, not as doctrine but as a compass – Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Not a warrior’s heaven. Not a conqueror’s earth. But a world where love, fairness, mercy, and forgiveness need no justification beyond themselves.
Until I feel that grace, if I ever do, this will have to be enough.