To Begin an Answer to Nihilism
The collapse of transcendence does not abolish ethical obligation. It abolishes only the metaphysical guarantees that once explained why obligation binds. What remains is obligation without justification—demand without promise, claim without cosmology. The biblical tradition does not resist this condition. It anticipates it.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the insistence, repeated across Law, Prophets, and Gospel, that care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan constitutes the Law in its entirety.
This insistence is not moral idealism. It is structural.
When Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment, he does not cite ritual, doctrine, or metaphysical truth. He summarizes the Law as love of God and love of neighbor, declaring:
“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22:40
This formulation is often mistaken for abstraction. But within Israel’s scriptures, neighbor is never undefined. The Law repeatedly names a specific figure: the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger. These are not symbolic categories. They are social positions of radical exposure—persons who cannot secure their own future through inheritance, land, or power.
The Torah does not ask whether one believes rightly about God. It asks whether one’s social order produces widows who starve.
“You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan… if they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.”
— Exodus 22:22–23
No argument is offered. No metaphysical rationale is supplied. Obligation is asserted as fact.
The prophets intensify this logic by withdrawing divine protection from ritual itself. Worship no longer guarantees legitimacy. Temple, sacrifice, and prayer are rendered void if justice fails.
“I hate, I despise your festivals… But let justice roll down like waters.”
— Amos 5:21–24
This is already religion after transcendence. God no longer secures meaning through cultic form. The only remaining criterion is whether the vulnerable are defended.
“Seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
— Isaiah 1:17
What is striking is that no reason is offered. The prophets do not argue why widows deserve justice. They speak as though the obligation is self-evident—binding even when God’s presence withdraws.
This anticipates a world in which transcendence can no longer stabilize meaning, yet obligation persists.
Jesus completes this trajectory not by restoring transcendence, but by collapsing it into vulnerability.
In the judgment scene of Matthew 25, the divine no longer speaks from heaven or law. It speaks from hunger, exposure, and abandonment:
“I was hungry and you gave me food… just as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me.”
— Matthew 25:40
This is not metaphor. It is a relocation of the sacred. God no longer mediates obligation through belief, doctrine, or cosmic order. God appears as claim—the claim issued by the one who cannot secure themselves, cannot repay, cannot justify their worth.
Transcendence does not disappear. It reveals itself through vulnerability.
The Epistle of James removes all remaining ambiguity:
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress.”
— James 1:27
James does not argue against belief. He renders it secondary. Once transcendence can no longer stabilize meaning, religion either becomes ideology, moral performance, or abandonment. James refuses all three.
What remains is obligation without promise: no salvation logic, no metaphysical reward, and no explanatory ground. Only the demand issued by the vulnerable.
This is the ethical condition after transcendence: obligation binds without explanation. It persists without justification. It commands without metaphysical support.
The widow matters not because compassion improves society, not because virtue is cultivated, not because God will reward obedience. She matters because her exposure binds the human world together. To abandon her is not to commit a moral error. It is to collapse the conditions under which obligation can survive at all.
This is why neglect of the poor is the Bible’s ultimate sin—not disbelief, not pride, not doubt. Neglect signals something more tragic: the refusal of obligation once meaning has failed.
After transcendence, ethics cannot be grounded in belief, cosmology, or moral systems. The biblical tradition does not flee this condition. It names its final anchor with brutal clarity.
If obligation survives anywhere, it survives in the face of the one who cannot be abandoned without destroying the human world itself.
The widow is not a moral object.
She is the site where obligation either persists—or disappears.
And that is why, when everything else falls away, the Law remains only there.
Brenton L. Delp
Leave a Reply