The offenses of the Pharisees are often misunderstood by the modern representatives of anti-nomianism. At its core, anti-nomianism is a rejection of Biblical moral obligations rooted in Mosaic Law and the New Testament's commentary on this Law. Pharisee is a pejorative word that might be used to discourage people from emphasizing Biblical ethics, especially given that Biblical ethics has neither a foundation nor a persisting obligatory status without Mosaic Law. In actuality, the Pharisees that Jesus condemned gave their allegiance to legalistic constructs of their day instead of God's commands, forfeiting any claim to moral superiority that they might have otherwise enjoyed.
Not all Pharisees were necessarily legalists who distorted the Old Testament, as I have explained elsewhere [1], but the ones who did so were the targets of Jesus for that reason. If they were legitimately superior to others by virtue of living righteously, Jesus would not have opposed them. Modern Christians might accuse people of Phariseeism if they rightfully identify their moral inferiors as inferiors, when moral superiority is a privilege to pursue, not a mythical condition that cannot be attained.
Pharaseeism is not the celebration of genuine moral superiority; it is the mistaking of adherence to extra-Biblical rules as grounds for moral superiority and the shunning of those who display actual contriteness. The Pharisees whom Jesus opposed were not guilty of obeying God's moral revelation, as if adhering to Mosaic Law means one is inadequate and sinful, but were instead guilty of misunderstanding and adding to it (Matthew 15:3-9), for Jesus would not have reprimanded them if they upheld God's actual commands with legitimate intentions (Matthew 5:19). These truths tend to be overlooked when evangelical and liberal theologians distance themselves from the enduring status of Mosaic Law within Christianity.
Denying that moral superiority and moral inferiority are inherent components of any ethical system does nothing to alter the fact that the existence of moral values necessitates that people who persistently align themselves with goodness make themselves metaphysically superior to those who persistently align themselves with evil. The Pharisees were not morally superior to those they condemned, since they practiced hypocrisy and legalism while obstructing the restoration of the repentant to God. The offenses of the Pharisees have not stopped some Christians from somehow simultaneously regarding them as villainous and upright, amusingly. However, someone who fulfills their moral obligations does possess a value that is superior to someone who does not.
Fear of moral inadequacy can stop people from attempting to morally better themselves. Nevertheless, all humans are instructed to pursue moral perfection (Matthew 5:48). Regardless of whether it is a popular fact, the Bible is blatantly clear that moral progress is, at the very least, a primary reason why God saves people to begin with [2]. The gospel is at its core about morality, for there would be no need for salvation apart from moral errors, and there would be nothing to ultimately restore people to without moral perfection. Even the mercy present in the gospel is only significant because mercy is not morally obligatory.
It is easy for people who know that they make minimal efforts to obey the Bible's commands to treat an emphasis on obeying Mosaic Law as if it, and not the inverse attitude, is a major problem within modern Christendom. Contrarily, anti-nomianism is one of the most influential and consistent problems in the church. It is one of the only things that evangelical and liberal theologians alike agree on. In neglecting Mosaic Law while prescribing non-obligatory and extra-Biblical rules, they have ironically become the Pharisees they falsely regard theonomists to be.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-sins-of-the-pharisees.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/saved-for-righteousness.html
No comments:
Post a Comment