Quote:
Originally Posted by JAD_333
lol...
In the usual telling of the story a key part is omitted. Noah received not one but two commands: One was from God and another from an authority called the "Lord". The Lord told him "to take clean beasts and fowls by SEVENS, unclean by two, male and female; with the expectation of sacrificing the clean beasts and fowls afterward." (Gen 8). But God tells him something different: "to collect two of every sort, male and female", but does not distinguish between clean and unclean nor mention any sacrifice.
This contradiction is the basis of the allegory. As it was explained to me, the story was designed to convey a couple of ideas to people. The first was that there are two levels of commands or laws affecting man: God's commands and the Lord's commands. In God's commands we see an impersonal god without favorites (man or beast, male or female) and one not commanding sacrificial offerings.
Another idea, which I don't see in the allegory, but others apparently do, is that God's commands come in the form of "grace", and it's a mystery how that works, while the Lord's commands are in written form. It gets a little clearer if we see Noah as representing the man who follows the commands of both God and Lord. That could mean it's wisest to follow the commands of both for the sake of "survival". Perhaps this is an earlier version of the "render unto Caesar..." advice Jesus gave to people conflicted about whether to serve God or the government.
|
This to my ears sound like Catholic doctrine of justification by good works (as defined by following 'the Law' decreed by God) and faith (trust in God's mercy/grace). Am I correct here?
This issue becomes terribly important, since Paul in his Letter to the Galatians claimed that Faith along justifies, and that Luther, following up on Paul's idea, claims that good works is of no merit because man in his corrupt state is incapable of doing any good works because his evil will does not allow him to do good works with the right intentions (i.e. for the love of God) but rather to escape divine wrath. He claims that faith granted by God's grace alone saves, and only those who are in a state of grace is capable of doing good works with pure intentions, even though the saved does not need to perform them in order to be saved. Roman Catholic theology, on the other hand, believes (I think) that God gave mankind free will so that we can choose for good and evil out of our own volition, which obliges man to do good works, since it is perfectly within his power to will for, and perform, the good. In Catholic doctrine then both good works and faith are required for salvation.
Since the intepretation you mentioned emphasizes both trust in God's mercy and the free agency of following the law, I presume who ever told you this interpretation is a Catholic.
That, or I am wildly off the mark.
