Anti-Gnosticism: Inside & Outside
Previously, I submitted a working definition for gnosticism, an infamously vague category which typically serves to mark various doctrines as heterodox. These still have in my view a family resemblance, despite the exonymic nature of the term itself. There’s no minimum viable criteria to which all doctrines called gnostic can be reduced without shaving off the edges and possibly mischaracterizing many (or _all_) of them. However, there are tendencies manifest in doctrines called gnostic, which distinguish them from others called orthodox, and we should think of these tendencies not as specific beliefs but as relations between a believer, their dogma, and their praxis. My earlier go was:
> that physical creation is a corrupt prison in which our souls are trapped, and that the goal of religion is to release our souls into a perfect immaterial realm where we’re free of material trappings and temptations
But even my attempt to cast a wide net is too specific and thus fails to accomplish my real goal to ensnare orthodoxy within its own discursive terms. That first clause suggests not a creation corrupted by Adam’s fall—to one degree or another, depending on who you ask—but one essentially corrupt as a matter of material. I’m happy to announce a breakthrough which encapsulates the thrust of this ‘series’, by identifying the primary conflict in gnostic thought and cutting across it in a way which opens up new interpretive opportunities for reading not only Paul or the Gospels but also the Torah in as much as the early Christians are fellow interpreters of the latter, and in as much as the latter was also itself composed (at least in part) as a critique of hegemonic ideology through the lens of idolatry. Then, I'm going to try to extend that thesis into the realms of ontology and ethics. I’m definitely reinventing the wheel, but it’s been a nice process revisiting these texts.
## The Material Fetish
The New Testament authors mix metaphors in ways which render exegesis difficult if we interpret the works through the Platonic or Aristotelian philosophical traditions by which those works were eventually transmitted to us. Two binaries are important to Paul, one of which I have discussed at length and the other I have avoided until now: nature–sin, that sin is either a corruption of or deviation from some divinely prescribed nature expressive of the _Logos_ ; and flesh–spirit, that the carnal desires of our flesh run contrary to those of the Spirit, one leading to evil and the other to goodness. Compare Romans (again! but we can now skip over the homosexuality bit, which is besides the point here):
> For the wrath of Gxd is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. For what can be known about Gxd is plain to them, because Gxd has made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world Gxd’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things Gxd has made. So they are without excuse, for though they knew Gxd, they did not honor him as Gxd or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the immortal Gxd for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
>
> Therefore Gxd gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth about Gxd for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
> …
> And since they did not see fit to acknowledge Gxd, Gxd gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, Gxd-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know Gxd’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
>
> Romans 1:18–25,28–32 (NRSVUE)
With Galatians:
> Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of Gxd.
>
> By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.
>
> Galatians 5:16–26 (NRSVUE)
Do you see the game? This seems like a contradiction—not in the gotcha bullshit sense, but in that Paul deploys superficially simple binaries (nature–sin and flesh–spirit) which in isolation are self-explanatory but in conjunction conflict. How can the desires of the flesh be sinful when they are natural? Though Paul is translated here as referring to none other than the Holy Spirit, what about spirit in general is good when there are “so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5). How can these binary frameworks, these simple analytical tools in themselves, be reconciled into a cohesive analysis? What is Paul really getting at?
It’s easy at this point to slip headfirst into gnostic thought. We need only to identify spirit with nature and flesh with sin. You don’t need to construct a new myth in which a hapless demiurge creates a material cosmos which (unbeknownst to him) is structurally alienated from the true spiritual reality. You can just say that, when sin enters the cosmos thanks to Adam, it not only impacts the children of Adam but all of creation. No matter how you go about the rationale, it behooves you to get out of this material mess so you can return to the spiritual, pre-material source of everything. Maybe Gxd will create the cosmos anew, and it won’t corrupt the second time. Or not. Pick and choose.
What’s the alternative? We could deploy some awkward linguistricks about the nuances behind the Greek words for flesh (σάρξ) and spirit (πνεῦμα), that what the former means is not _stricto sensu_ natural but excessive, or that what the latter means is not _stricto sensu_ immaterial but a partial object in the composition of the body (not necessarily lacking the concept of something like modern mind–body dualism, but consisting of a more complex system whose components are at once multiple and partial). Do you feel enlightened yet? Knowing those facts helps complicate the popular interpretation, providing good context, but in themselves they don’t bring us any closer to actual understanding. It also does not help us to suppose that Paul is deploying these concepts rhetorically. Then we’re fucked. What would be the point? What’s the reason behind any of this?
I just read a book by my woke Mormon king Dan McClellan, _YHWH’s Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach_ (2022), in which he proposes an outline of the cognitive development of the concept of deity (he argues, from an identification of unseen natural agents with ancestors) and their relationship to physical media which are thought to be at once (this is a recurring quote) “identified with and distinguished from” the particular deity they are said to represent and thus embody. This has interesting implications with regard to, e.g., the divinity of Christ as the bearer of the divine name, or human beings as likenesses of Gxd’s image; but this notion can be reflected back onto Paul’s critique of idolatry, and thus contextualize how he understands sin to function. I was going to frame this around Žižek’s Lacanian reversal of Deleuze and Guattari, referring to organs without bodies as opposed to bodies without organs, or wielding Lacan as Mr. Secularized Catholicism to conceptualize the subject as an experience emergent of many partial objects and drives, but we need only look at Paul’s analogy of the body as a vessel or temple:
> According to the grace of Gxd given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Let each builder choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—the work of each builder will become visible, for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If the work that someone has built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a wage. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
>
> Do you not know that you are Gxd’s temple and that Gxd’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys Gxd’s temple, Gxd will destroy that person. For Gxd’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
>
> 1 Corinthians 3:10–7 (NRSVUE)
> “All things are permitted for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and Gxd will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body. And Gxd raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun sexual immorality! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from Gxd, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify Gxd in your body.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 (NRSVUE)
> Therefore, since it is by Gxd’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. We have renounced the shameful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify Gxd’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of Gxd. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of Gxd. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’s sake. For it is the Gxd who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of Gxd in the face of Christ.
>
> But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to Gxd and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way but not crushed, perplexed but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed, always carrying around in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For we who are living are always being handed over to death for Jesus’s sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us but life in you.
>
> 2 Corinthians 4:1–12
> So it depends not on human will or exertion but on Gxd who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I may show my power in you and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
>
> You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who indeed are you, a human, to argue with Gxd? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if Gxd, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction, and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the gentiles?
>
> Romans 9:16–24 (NRSVUE)
Do these passages even need to be interpreted? Not really! Creation is a temple of Gxd, and so is the body of the believer, and this is characterized as embodying the Holy Spirit of Gxd as a vessel. Paul describes this believing body poetically as a treasure in a clay jar, evoking both Genesis 2 with the creation of Adam and Isaiah 45 where Cyrus, despite not knowing Gxd [!], becomes His anointed vessel to execute His will (does this not position Cyrus as an exception to the tendency Paul criticizes in Romans 1:18–21, being someone who despite Gxd’s invisibility _qua_ Gxd ends up acting in accordance with Gxd through his righteous stewardship over creation?). The cohabitation of the body with Gxd’s spirit and one’s own is a uniquely human condition owing to their likeness to Gxd’s image, through which humanity via idolatry augments the material creation with a virtual semiotic reality, investing mere creation with divine agency by projecting upon it their own social relations through their pseudo-creative imagination. The defining conflict is thus not between flesh and spirit as such, but between actual and virtual, or between natural and social.
The stereotypical gnostic reading, that the vessel concept really represents some material prison which entraps our pre-material soul, does not seem to reflect the ethos behind the analysis of nature and sin Paul submits. Each individual human vessel, or even the totality of creation as one grand vessel, was created by Gxd to embody _Pneuma_ and express _Logos_ rather than having been created or corrupted by some antagonist to serve as an obstacle to those ends. The real antagonist is the fetish form, the _theos tou aiōnos_ (maybe _Zeitgeist_ or _Weltgeist_), the idolatrous virtual cosmos through which humanity transforms the living creation (of which it is part) according to its own image.
## Anatomy of Gxd
> Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge, but anyone who loves Gxd is known by him.
>
> Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists” and that “there is no Gxd but one.” Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one Gxd, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
>
> 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 (NRSVUE)
I was originally going to cite 1 Cor. 8 at length for the next section, but I realized verse 6 in particular expresses a counterpoint against the Trinitarian theology, submitted by Larry Hurtado in _One God, One Lord_ (1988) and developed by McClellan in his aforementioned book through his own framework of image theology. The gist is that Jesus Christ or the _Logos_ is not ontologically Gxd, whatever Gxd is—have you noticed my new convention?—but wields divine agency, i.e. the ability to speak and act on behalf of Gxd, or even to be identified with Gxd, by virtue of bearing Gxd’s _Name_. This is contrary to the Trinity which developed some centuries after the composition of the New Testament using neoplatonic philosophy to conceptualize the Father, the Son (_Logos_), and the Holy Spirit (_Pneuma_) as a single essence (_ousia_) shared by multiple persons (_hypostases_). This sort-of got vulgarized over time as Euro-Christianity (for lack of a better word) become detached from its earlier Hellenistic philosophical context, into a bare-bones concept that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each Gxd, but none are any of the other. See also below, which segues nicely from the previous section in the second paragraph:
> The Son is the image of the invisible Gxd, the firstborn over all creation. For in him [!] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him [!]. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together [!]. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For Gxd was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
>
> Once you were alienated from Gxd and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
>
> Colossians 1:15–23 (NRSVUE)
Maybe I’m unsophisticated, but I dislike ontology. Every time I stumble upon ontological discourse it reminds me of Plato’s much-maligned-by-myself thought-heaven, in that they always talk like they’re describing things and their relationships, but always end up really talking about how we conceptualize things. I was pleasantly surprised to learn Heidegger, for his part, relativized his ontological framework such that his analysis is framed around how things exist for _Dasein_ , and this explains why Lacan could later easily appropriate his analysis by giving it a linguistic turn (since what we are really dealing with are signifiers)—though I could easily be mistaken. In any case, that’s why I’ve come to dislike the Trinity as a conceptual framework. It attributes to an ontological essence what the New Testament authors by-and-large seem to attribute to a name (or _The Name_ in particular) because the later readers could only conceptualize divinity (especially one shared) in terms of essence, resulting in the ontological identification of the _Logos_ and _Pneuma_ with the deity Gxd with whose divinity (signified by _The Name_) they shared and identified.
I submit that essence is less significant than embodiment, that what we call ‘monotheism’ is a divestment of divinity from unseen agents called deities to cosmic physical principles which emanate from the source of creation and whose invisible dynamics can be grasped through reason if one is not blinded by idolatry. In other words, for there to be one Gxd—bearing in mind the ontological difference between the transcendent Gxd as opposed to the typical personal deity—is the same as if there were no god. To argue about if the _Logos_ or the _Pneuma_ can be ontologically identified with Gxd _qua_ creator, source, or even deity is besides the point of how those terms express or embody divinity as such. Essence and personhood are red herrings, concept-signifiers in ontological drag, idolatry by definition. _The Logos_ , none other than the _Name_ itself, takes center stage over the _Name_ ’s signified—after all, as Gxd’s image, it is the only way we can grasp Gxd. Isn’t it telling that we’re first introduced to the _Name_ when we enter Adam’s semiotic cosmos in Genesis 2, although it is via speech that Gxd creates the material cosmos in Genesis 1? The _Logos_ and _Pneuma_ may best be understood as neither (necessarily) preexistent nor created, but as emergent relational properties between Gxd and creation, or nothing and being. “ _’Ehye ’ăšer ’ehye._ ” What better translation is there of the _Name_ than _Becoming_?
It’s one thing for Jesus to have apparently borne the _Name_ and embodied the _Pneuma_ , these seeming to correlate with each other as per McClellan’s image theology framework (an image embodies a deity in as much as it signifies it, and _vice versa_ , but it is a symbolic identity of divinity rather than an ontological identity of deity). But what distinguishes Jesus from a human being who also embodies the _Pneuma_ , functionally as a temple does? My impression is that for Paul, as well as in Johannine literature, it is only through Jesus as bearer of the _Name_ that we can embody the _Pneuma_ and thus access Gxd (‘the Father’) in a mediated fashion—which (again!) we already know because that’s what the _Logos_ is, conceptually speaking. Is it a disservice to flatten the _Logos_ and Jesus himself (according to Paul and John) with the _Name_? To reiterate, I don’t think this calls for discrete ontology. Jesus minus the _Name_ is just a guy. Metatron minus the _Name_ is just an angel. The Ark of the Covenant minus the _Name_ is just a box. Regardless, it is through the _Name_ that we in turn can embody _Pneuma_ , like a pipe through which fluid flows down from source to sink. Can the _Logos_ be identified with matter itself? If Paul were espousing an earlier, simplified variation on Kabbalah, it wouldn’t be surprising. He’s certainly at least a Merkabah mystic. There’s probably something going on.
In any case, you don’t need essentialize the _Logos_ or _Pneuma_ as Gxd by reference to _ousia_ and _hypostases_ to conceptualize their shared divinity. This is not just semantic nitpicking about whether Gxd ‘the Father’, the _Logos_ , and the _Pneuma_ share an ontological essence, but that it should be referred to as divinity rather than deity (which was certainly reserved by Paul and others to refer to ‘the Father’). We could instead conceptualize deity, divinity, and creation as structural dimensions of a fluid-mechanical system. Thus any apparent divisions in divinity are virtual from the vantage of creation (in humanity) observing itself, forming concepts through which it alienates itself from its hidden material composition. Otherwise, as we might put it in our modern context, it’s quantum wave–particle bullshit all the way down. This is not a controversial view in the context of other traditions which may also be considered monotheistic or even Abrahamic, as if a sufficiently self-conscious religion eventually trips and falls into panentheist or pantheist notions: the Jewish _ēn sōf_ , the Islamic _wahdat al-wujūd_ , the Hindu _Brahman_ , or just the general premise of Buddhism. Paul’s very particular truth-claim is that the historical person of Jesus had incarnated the divine image (which Paul defines rather broadly above: all things were created in, through, and for this divine image with whom Jesus is identified; what exactly is _not_ Gxd’s image? or what does it mean to exist _inside_ Gxd’s image?). That’s the stumbling block.
## Law & Love
Back to food sacrificed to idols.
> It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. “Food will not bring us close to Gxd.” We are no worse off if we do not eat and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge the weak brother or sister for whom Christ died is destroyed. But when you thus sin against brothers and sisters and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never again eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.
>
> 1 Corinthians 8:7–13 (NRSVUE)
Like I said, this one of my favorite passages because it’s surprisingly morally relativistic in that Paul asks the mature believer to spare the confused feelings of less mature believers to avoid offending their developing conscience (or perhaps critical thinking facility). I had joked with my partner along these lines: is it gay (for a heterosexual male) to fuck a (male-to-female) trans(-sex individual)? We can turn the spice up, since the physiological reality of medical transition is perhaps too reassuring, as is perhaps the woman’s self-concept—both of those reasons being ones I have seen to objectively declare the relations non-gay. How about, let’s say, Katya Zamolodchikova when she’s too lazy to get out of drag as her body hits the sheets? Or a self-hating fascist femboy? It’s not gay to just be attracted to feminine expression, is the third formula I see, but therein lies the problem. There’s plenty of heterosexual men who don’t have weird complexes about their sexuality as it relates to trans-females or even potentially feminine cross-dressers. But the ‘objective’ presence of feminine signifiers is also what enables down-low trade to indulge in their homosexuality at what they perceive to be a symbolic distance. Yet, doing so ‘offends’ their conscience, because they fully understand that they are playing games, so then they take it out on the unwitting ‘objects’ of their fetishistic (in both senses) attraction, often violently. This leads to a vastly more destructive and unethical situation—for themselves and everyone else—than if they didn’t try to work around ‘legal’ obligations they thought binding.
Maybe that anecdote’s a bit of a stretch, but (at least) I think it well illustrates the sort of tizzy in which we find ourselves when subjecting our life to the law. The New Perspective on Paul tends to interpret Paul’s reference to “the law” as being to the Torah specifically, and that seems to be the historical context in which he’s criticizing the centrality of works of “the law” to believers’ self-conception of their faith—the big question being, do gentiles need to maintain Mosaic laws (especially of purity) to maintain or demonstrate their faith, and to commune with Jewish members of the movement? I want to stake a few claims. First, that though contextually Paul refers to the Torah, what he says applies to any formal or ritualistic lifestyle supposed to embody goodness (a capital-L, no article, Law). Second, when Paul refers to works, and to their non-efficacy on salvation, he is referring to works of Law, i.e. conscious efforts to live according to formal ‘rules’. As such, and third, there is no conflict between what Paul says of works of Law and what James says about works as essential to justify faith, the latter of which we might call works of Love.
Jame’s epistles was actually one of, if not alone, my favorite books canonized in the Bible. The author is concerned most of all with hypocrisy within the assembly and the reduction of religion to statement of belief, especially as pertains to a degeneration of praxis toward materially supporting the poor and oppressed. I’m going to quote at length up to the part in question, for no reason other than I think it’s poignant. The author—if he is not James—certainly carries on the legacy of James, who carried on Jesus’ own, in deinstitutionalizing Jewish _politeia_ and deploying it as a framework to organize against oppression. Note the author’s terminology, “the perfect law”, “the law of liberty”, “the royal law”, in referring to Jesus commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.
> But be doers of the word and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.
>
> If any think they are religious and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before Gxd the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
>
> My brothers and sisters, do not claim the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory while showing partiality. For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here in a good place, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not Gxd chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor person. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into the courts? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
>
> If you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
>
> James 1:22–2:13 (NRSVUE)
I’ve seen a subsection of the last paragraph to argue that the author advocates for total adherence to the Torah. Of course he would, some say, since James is not just a Christian but a Torah-observant Jew (keeping in mind that ‘Christianity’ begins as a sect of Second Temple Judaism which only de-judaizes when gentiles institutionalize it as a new religion, arguably as an orientalized neoplatonism). But I read it differently as: to be partial towards different members of the assembly, especially on a classist basis, is the same as if you do not cheat on your spouse but do murder people. The latter situation would constitute a transgression of the Mosaic law and, by analogy, the former would constitute a breaking of the “perfect law”.
> What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
>
> But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works, and I by my works will show you faith. You believe that Gxd is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was brought to completion. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed Gxd, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of Gxd. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
>
> James 2:14–26 (NRSVUE)
Incredible passage by (most probably) pseudo-James! We all know so-called ‘Christians’ who need to hear this today (not like they’d act on it). The millennial holy work, _The Office_ , puts it wisely: “You can’t just say the word ‘bankruptcy’ and expect anything to happen.” What good is a belief system to posture? It’s no good except to feel like you’re absolving yourself and perhaps look good in front of others (those who won’t see right through it). My friend, a software engineer, encounters many annoying transbians in his line of work. “You say you’re a lesbian?” he asks. “Prove it!” I’ve also said recently that nothing is more frustrating than someone who bases their discourse on posturing or seeking authenticity. We all have the same complaint, when you get to the down-and-dirty of it. What people sometimes notice is that what James seems almost like a point-by-point counterargument against Paul’s use of Abraham in his epistle to the Romans (are you familiar with what we in the business call the Romans Road?). Let’s also meet Paul where he’s at: answering the Romans’ questions about whether they should circumcised, saying outward circumcision is a signifier of faith one already practices, and those who are circumcised “inwardly” will not be discriminated against those circumcised “outwardly”:
> Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if the uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then the physically uncircumcised person who keeps the law will judge you who, though having the written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from Gxd.
>
> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of Gxd. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of Gxd? By no means! Although every human is a liar, let Gxd be proved true, as it is written,
>
>> So that you may be justified in your words
> and you will prevail when you go to trial.
>
> But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of Gxd, what should we say? That Gxd is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could Gxd judge the world? But if through my falsehood Gxd’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their judgment is deserved!
>
> What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all, for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.
>
> Romans 2:25–3:9 (NRSVUE)
You’ll notice that despite dealing with opposite behaviors—‘James’ dealing with believers for whom a simple statement of faith suffices, and Paul dealing with believers performing an outward act of faith in order to validate it before others—both authors have the same complaint about one underlying rationale. Performance! Hypocrisy! Authenticity-seeking! Let’s skip ahead; we don’t need to cover Paul remixing seven different Psalms with Isaiah and Ecclesiastes, though one must appreciate his audacity.
> But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of Gxd has been disclosed and is attested by the Law and the Prophets, the righteousness of Gxd through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Gxd; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom Gxd put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to demonstrate at the present time his own righteousness, so that he is righteous and he justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus.
>
> Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. Through what kind of law? That of works? No, rather through the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is Gxd the Gxd of Jews only? Is he not the Gxd of gentiles also? Yes, of gentiles also, since Gxd is one, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law through this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
>
> Romans 3:21–31 (NRSVUE)
Again, the emphasis on rebuking boasters! The second paragraph is key: one is justified by faith, not by outward signifiers of faith as expressed in Law (or the Torah in particular). I won’t be a broken record. Let’s now see that passage from Paul which James apparently rebuked above in his discourse about Abraham being justified not by works alone but by faith made manifest by works (giving the specific example of offering Isaac as a sacrifice as demanded by Gxd).
> What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before Gxd. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed Gxd, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David pronounces a blessing on those to whom Gxd reckons righteousness apart from works:
>
>> Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven
> and whose sins are covered;
> blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.
>
> Is this blessing, then, pronounced only on the circumcised or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.
>
> Romans 4:1–12 (NRSVUE)
Let me tell you what I imagine. There are some dumbasses in Rome, saying that gentiles aren’t going to be saved unless they get circumcised, or perhaps wielding circumcision as a cudgel of significance while being a shitty person (this may be implied when Paul says, rebuking an apparently hypothetical person, that you can’t do bad shit and act like you’re covered by grace). Then there are some dumbasses somewhere else—the author of James addresses diaspora Jews in the capital-C Church, perhaps under a hellenizing influence—who quote Paul selectively, especially the first paragraph of Romans 4, to claim that they don’t need to be accountable to anything except their declaration of faith, and use that to shield against criticism of doing bad shit or nothing at all. When you read them together, you get a really cohesive and consistent theory of religious praxis. No outward signifiers, whether in the form of rituals or declarations. Have faith and live according to it, which to Paul means “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Gxd, which is your reasonable act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). What does that look like? On one hand, similar to what he prescribes in 1 Corinthians, church members should contribute and participate according to their abilities: prophecy, service, teaching, encouragement, giving charity, leading, showing mercy (is that a job, Paul?). But in general, Paul suggests the following, clearly paraphrasing the teachings of Jesus:
> Let love be genuine; hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal; be ardent in spirit; serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope; be patient in affliction; persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; pursue hospitality to strangers.
>
> Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be arrogant, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of Gxd, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” Instead, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
>
> Romans 12:9–21 (NRSVUE)
And finally (skipping the infamous bit about submission to authorities), echoing Jesus and pseudo-James:
> Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.
>
> Romans 13:8–10 (NRSVUE)
Maybe it’s the evangelicalism jumping out of me. I don’t mean this to be a conservative reaction against textual or historical criticism about degrees of conflict within the early, perhaps pre-Christian Jesus movement. I just see a very consistent ethos between Paul and James and Jesus. The _Name_ our Gxd is one. Love your neighbor as yourself. Boasting about faith or works probably means you lack both. Following a Law won’t keep you from hurting others, and it won’t help you do good to them. The perfect commandment (in the senses of being both flawless and final) is to practice Love for its own sake, for goodness, which surpasses and fulfills whatever Law exists (perhaps analogous to how monotheism functions as atheism by divesting agency from human superstitions). Law, however, is an approximation of the perfect commandment by means of an exhaustive enumeration of various (not to mention historically contingent) practices, which gives names to one sin or another, and by its structure invites the practicioner to find ways to bypass it without yet transgressing it by the letter. Law is a simulacrum of Love. Law is insufficient, _stricto sensu_. One can argue about whether the “Law of Love” is inclusive of e.g. the Torah in its totality, and certainly the Gospels argue with each other about that, but that discourse is besides the point and it reeks of authenticity-seeking.
I’d like to close with quotations from Sarah Ruden’s poignant translation of Mark’s Gospel, supposed to be the earliest, in which Jesus seems to agree with (and perhaps can serve as a mediator between) James and Paul. Ruden is an excellent translator and analyst. I’ve just read her books _Paul Among the People_ and _Perpetua_ , and her translations of not only those authors but also of Ovid and Petronius kept striking me in their candid realness. So, then I picked up her translation of the Gospels, and was again delighted (though I’m still making my way through it—right now, in the middle of my least favorite, Matthew). I’m not going to add diacretics since I’m typing this from looking at my physical copy.
> And [Iesous] said to [the Farisaioi], "Esaias was right when he prophesied about you play-actors, as it’s been written:
>
>> The people honor me with their lips alone,
> While their heart is far away from me.
> Uselessly they “worship me”,
> Teaching human injunctions as the teachings.
>
> “Throwing away god’s command, you hold to what human beings have handed down.” And he said to them, “That’s a fine way to break god’s command—in order to set up on firm ground what _you_ hand down. Mouses in fact said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever insults his father or mother is to meet his end and die,’ You say, on the other hand, that if someone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help might have come from me is _korban_ (meaning an offering),’ you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or mother! In this way, you cancel what god spoke by this handing down of yours that you’ve handed down—and you handle a whole lot else in different ways.”
>
> Then he called the crowd back again and said to them, “All of you listen to me, and understand. Nothing outside a person that makes its way _into_ him, however indiscriminately, can make him dirty; rather, the things making their way _out_ of a person make that person dirty.”
>
> Then when he came home, away from the crowd, his students asked him what this analogy meant. And he said to them, “You too—do you have so little understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing outside that makes its way into a person can dirty him? It’s because it doesn’t make his way into his heart but into his belly, and then makes its waydown the latrine—and that makes all kinds of food clean!” Then he said, "The thing that makes its way _out_ of a person, _that_ dirties a person. In fact, _out_ ward, _out_ of people’s hearts, bad calculations make their way, and whoring, thefts, murders, violations of marriage, rapacious greed, nasty vices, fast and loose living, the nasty stare of envy, backstabbing lies, shameless gall, moronic behavior. All of these things make their way from the _inside_ to the _outside_ and make a person dirty.
>
> Mark 7:6–23 (Sarah Ruden)
Doesn’t that tie, surprisingly, the first and third sections of this well together? It’s what comes out of you, not what goes into you. I’m going to let the multiplicity marinate.
> Then one of the scholars approached, having heard them arguing; seeing that Iesous had answered them well, he questioned him: “Which is the chief command among them all?” And Iesous answered: “The chief one is 'Listen, Israel: the lord our god is one lord, and you are to love the lord your god with the whole of your heart and the whole of your life, and the whole of your mind and the whole of your strength. The next most important commandment is this one: ‘You are to love the one next to you as you love yourself.’ There is no command greater than these two.” Then the scholar said to him, “That’s right, teacher. It’s true what you said: there is one, and no other, none except him, and to love him with the whole of the heart and the whole of the understanding and the whole of the strength, and to love the one next to you the way you love yourself—this is more than all the animals burnt to ashes as offerings, and all the other sacrifices.” Then, seein that [he] had answered intelligently, Iesous said to him, “You’re not far off from god’s kingdom.” And no one dared to question him any further.
>
> Mark 12:26–34 (Sarah Ruden)
One last note: I think it's interesting that the physical world has virtual layers of abstraction as well, in that things on one layer interact with each other, even though those things and interactions are emergent aggregations of lower levels. That feels like a different phenomenon than how human beings and cultures project social realities onto nature and thus reshape it. Kohei Saito says something along similar lines as Deleuze and Guattari: humans are part of nature too, but we've created this self-expanding virtual enclave in capital and civilization which nature (including ourselves) can't metabolically sustain.
