Author Archives: Jacobs+

“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”

Karl Marx, Critic of Hegel philosophy of Right.

I am currently recovering from surgery. Prior to my surgery, I had no experience with narcotics or in Marx’s choice word opium. I remember returning home the same day after my surgery and writhing in pain with no one around to help. The pain was so intense that I could not answer phone calls because I had left my phone on the dresser away from the bed. So I took two tablets of the oxycodone 5-325 given to me at the hospital, man did it feel so good after few minutes! The bed felt unusually warm and cozy to the point that I forgot I had just had surgery. I remember narrating this experience to my friend and she said, “Blessing you were high, that’s what was happening to you.” I had no idea that that’s what being high translates to (no wonder it is a controlled substance), man it felt so good!!! But after about six hours the reality settled in as the pain resurfaced.

If you know a little about philosophy, agnosticism, or atheism you must have heard this quote, “religion is the opium of the masses (people).” This quote when read in exclusion of the entire quotation would suggest that Karl Marx was against religion. But was he really? Let’s look at the quote as a whole. “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress.”

It seems to me that Karl admits that people are in distress and religion offers them comfort in the same way people who are physically going through pain from injuries or in my own case surgery receive temporal relief from narcotics (opium). To Karl, religion is the protest against the real distress. What is the real distress that Marx has in mind? Is it not the existing economic and political structures that cause suffering to the masses and disenfranchise the poor in our society?

The second part of the quote recognizes religion as “the sigh of the oppressed creature and heart of the heartless world.” Let’s assume that Karl’s use of the word religion is in the context of organized religion or institutionalized faith (I am arguing that religion could but not solely refer to institutionalized faith). He admits that it is a sigh (of relief?) of the oppressed creature. It seems to me that Marx is saying that the purpose of religion is to create relief for the poor and oppressed through it’s creation of illusory fantasies for these disenfranchised people.

I will argue that he was irate about the political and economic systems in place that hinder the poor from achieving true happiness in this present world of form. Religion then says to the masses; it’s okay, do not worry, this world is not all there is. Do not worry about this transient world, its wickedness and indifference to true virtue and happiness because you will find happiness in the life to come.

Karl concedes that people are in distress and religion provides comfort or alleviates the pain in a similar fashion as narcotics would provide temporary relief to those who are going through physical pain. What I find fascinating is that Karl recognizes that opiates do not heal the physical injury in the same way that religion whether organized or existential does not resolve the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering. Instead, religion helps them to explore why they are suffering and helps them to look to an imaginary future, where pain and suffering would be completely eradicated. A future where the King of righteousness will return and establish His rule in our world. A future where there would be no more sickness, oppression, war, poverty, and dying. A future, where in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, the shroud that covers all people would be removed.

Although, it would be misleading for me to insinuate that Marx did not have disgust for organized religion, but when this quote is considered in it’s entirety, it seem to me that he inadvertently uses religion as a polemic to the temporary relief obtained from the unjust political and economic system that enslave and constantly keep the less privileged in perpetual poverty by policies which offer them temporary relief. That Marx is not entirely against religion could be seen in the resulting Liberation theology by the Latin American theologians, that utilized Marx’s analysis of religion as a critique of the economic injustice against the poor. What do you think about my thoughts about this quote?

One of the things we learn in the Pauline corpus is that several issues he addressed in them were things that arose in the church at that time. He did not set out to write a handbook of systematic theology, or manuals, instructing his audience on how to deal with issues arising within the church. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul deals with divisions among the church concerning the administration of the Eucharist.

The Lord’s Supper that was meant to be received in an orderly manner was being abused by the wealthy in the Corinthian Church. Paul deals with this situation and then gives a formula that is being used in many churches today. We also see a similar case later in chapter 15, where Paul deals with the issue of resurrection, Some brethren were dubious of the possibility of resurrection, considering that the physical body was considered to be inferior to the spiritual body; and a thing to be discarded. Paul tried to address in this  referenced chapter. And I could go on. In the same manner, Paul addresses the problem of divorce and remarriage, which arguably was a problem in the Corinthian church at the time of his writing.

Before we begin, I must emphasize that the Bible prohibits divorce. The Lord speaking through His mouth piece in Malachi 2: 16, declares that He hates divorce. But, even before then, He also declares in Genesis 2: 26-28, how marriage is a one flesh bond that cannot be broken. Both the Hebrew and Greek words used for the bonding of the man with his wife suggest inseparability. The Hebrew word “dabaq” utilized in Genesis 2 (to weld, to cleave), tends to have more force to it than the Greek kollao (to glue, to unite). Jesus in Matthew in 19, is reiterating what He had said in Genesis (if we agree that He was the one doing the creative activity in Genesis as is evidenced by Col. 2:14-16), that divorce can be allowed only on account of fornication porneia (Matthew 19:9).

So what we have on the subject of divorce are words of Jesus, Yahweh, and Paul. To guide us in understanding how this delicate issue can be handled, we must refer to what we have learned in NT survey, NT studies, and biblical hermeneutics (arts and science of biblical interpretation): looking at the historical background, culture, atmosphere, how the literature was understood, and then applying the principles to the present. One thing that stands out is that there are some modifications going on here. Yahweh says He hates divorce, Jesus allows it only on account of fornication, and Paul says it is okay if the unbelieving spouse seeks to divorce his believing spouse.

Is any of them undermining each other? By no means! When Paul was dealing with divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:18-16, he was quite clear that this was a direct command from the Lord (Mark 10:9; Matthew 19), unlike his suggestion and guidance respecting marriage and remarriage of widows earlier (1 Cor. 7: 1-9). Divorce was never intended by God for his people, and also not intended for His people today. From the time that man was created in God’s image there is something about this one flesh bond that reflects God’s image into the cosmos and back in reverence to God. A breaking of this one flesh bond will be dishonoring God, as well as the individual involved. I have witnessed divorce first hand, and I have spoken to numerous people who have. It is a heart wrenching experience.
However, Paul said that if a non Christian partner wanted to separate, the Christian partner should not resist. Paul modifies Jesus’ teachings in (Mark 10: 9), not to divorce; but is not by any means undermining Jesus’ teachings, as Jesus in no way undermines Malachi 2: 16; but has applied them in detail to a new situation that Jesus never faced. It is left for us today to decipher what constitutes fornication. Looking the usage of adultery moichao (adultery) and porneia (fornication) in the gospel by Jesus, it does seem that these words are used interchangeably for unchastity or immorality. The traditional interpretation that adultery is sexual sin between married couple outside of marriage, or a married person with unmarried person; and fornication as sexual sin before marriage is misleading.

This is because Jesus singles out “fornication,” which is a sexual sin against one flesh bond as the only grounds allowable for divorce (Matthew 19:9). I will argue then, that an act does not only have to be sexual to constitute fornication. In line with Dr. Gordon Hugenberger, one of the people that shaped my theological thought, I am arguing that fornication includes willful desertion, as well as adultery. This also includes any act that repudiates the marriage vows. The present day church who live in many different situations that was never contemplated by either Jesus, Malachi, or Paul need wisdom, humility and Holy Spirit’s guidance to apply their teaching afresh in their own time. My answer is yes. It is acceptable for a Christian to divorce.

Obviously, God hates divorce. Jesus told the Pharisees (Matthew 19:3-12) that God’s original plan was for a man and woman to be joined in marriage and made one flesh through the act of sex. No man is to be able to separate that bond. Even if the man and woman do divorce, they are still joined together because their flesh is joined. In the Old Testament, divorce is defined in two ways: 1) to send away and 2) a cutting, as in severing a tie. When Jesus refers to divorce it is defined as to send away, as in being fired or let go. When reading about divorce in the Old Testament, it’s almost as if the man can leave if he’s unhappy with his wife and her performance (Deut. 24:1). Jesus gives no such stipulations, only to say that to remarry the same person after a divorce is to commit adultery. 

I hope that you are blessed reading this blog.

Fr. Jacobs

I think that to be able to respond to this question sincerely, one’s denominational affiliation and understanding of baptism have to be considered. But I must start off by saying that the Bible does not in anywhere prohibit infant baptism or stipulate that only adults ought to be baptized. If Baptism is just the outward sign of belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and savior, then infants baptism will not be a possibility since infants on their own cannot profess faith or belief in Christ. However, if baptism represents our union with Jesus in His death, burial and resurrections, then Jesus’ death is for both the infants and adult. If baptism is symbolic of our birth into God’s family, forgiveness of sins, and our new life in the Holy Spirit, that comes through faith in Jesus Christ, then infants ought not to be baptized, because they cannot profess faith in Christ.
    One will argue that with reference to adult baptism, baptism would follow faith or belief in Christ. However, if one views baptism as that which emanates from the ancient Jewish tradition of circumcision, then infants ought to be included in the external expression of faith, since the baptism of an infant is his or her entry point into the covenant community of the family of God’s people-the church. For the denomination that practices infant baptism, the only one reason why infants are baptized is that the parents of the child has accepted the Lordship of Jesus Christ as head of their household. By the virtue of their acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus, such families have now entered into a new covenant relationship with God into which their children will now inhabit until they become of age to make a recommitment of their lives to Christ by way of confirmation of the baptism that was administered to them in their infant years.
    Baptism does not cleanse sin. It does not assure salvation either. It is just part of belonging or identifying with the family of God’s people. Ishmael was circumcised, yet it was not through him that the Child of promise came. Ishmael and his offspring can only be part of the promise by their faith in Christ and not by the virtue of  their circumcision.
    There are no overt mention of infant baptism in the NT, but there is a possibility of children being included in the baptized household referenced in Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; and 1Corinthinas 1:16. To buttress the point that infants ought to be baptized, one has to consider such passages as 1Cor 7:14; and Mk 10:13-16. As a minister in the Anglican tradition, I am arguing that infants ought to be baptized at the behest of their parents, if the parents are born again believers and Church members in good standing.
What do you think? I need responses. Hundreds of people do view my post, can you imagine how blessed we would be if everyone one of the viewers shared their opinions? I encourage you to respond and if you have questions or something personal you like to share, please feel free to contact me.

FOR WHAT SINS DID JESUS DIE?.