It is true that Jesus and Paul have conflicting theologies? Jesus does say in Matthew 22:37-40 that loving God with all of one's being (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) and loving one's neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18) summarize Mosaic Law as the two greatest or most foundational commands. Whereas Jesus mentions two commands, Paul says in Romans 13:8-10 that loving one's neighbor, which he specifies is only one command, fulfills the Law. Like many other seeming contradictions in Biblical philosophy, this one is not very difficult to identify as nothing more than an ostensible contradiction. Read the passages below and see if you can notice the reason why Paul speaks this way and why it does not conflict with the teachings of Jesus:
Matthew 22:34-40--"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'
Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
Romans 13:8-10--"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not covet,' and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law."
As established by verse 8, Paul is focusing specifically on how one should treat other people. This is the debt we owe all other people: to love them, which can only genuinely, holistically be done by treating them in accordance with God's just nature, as expressed in Mosaic Law. Love is owed, making it deserved, and thus it is a matter of justice to love others. The morality of love is not some issue of emotionalistic subjectivism, but it rather encompasses the many individual objective obligations like allowing workers to rest one day out of every seven (Deuteronomy 5:12-15), not murdering anyone (Exodus 20:13), not taking advantage of the disabled (Leviticus 19:14), and so on. If one does all of these things and the rest along with living out their logical necessary ramifications unstated in the Law [1], one loves others as one should; inversely, if one legitimately loves others, one will treat them as the particulars of morality require.
Jesus, unlike Paul in Romans 13:8-10, specifically addresses how one should regard God and other people. When it comes to people, he teaches the exact same as what Paul does--that loving one's neighbor as oneself in the genuine sense, as clarified by other parts of Mosaic Law since it is impossible to know what is and is not specifically loving from Leviticus 19:18 alone, fulfills the entirety of the Law's prescriptions for human interpersonal treatment. There is no contradiction. Jesus speaks in Matthew 22:37-40 of something slightly beyond the scope of what Paul writes in Romans 13:8-10, yet they otherwise convey the same ethical philosophy of love as it relates to the Torah laws. To contradict the worldview of Jesus on this point, Paul's would have to entail that we should not love God, which he does not say in Romans or anywhere else.
An irony is that neither loving God nor loving other people accounts for all of Mosaic Law in a very narrow sense. What of non-human animals (Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 22:6-7, 25:4, and so on) or the environment (Leviticus 25:1-7)? The Law does not strictly deal with duties directly to God and fellow humans. Yes, not mistreating animals and managing the environment ethically are still moral matters that pertain to God's nature and treating them well can certainly express love for God. But helping an animal struggling under a load, not taking a mother bird with her eggs, and allowing an animal to eat as it treads grain by not muzzling it are also very much about helping non-human creatures. Is an animal of the non-human kind one's neighbor? Should one love an animal as oneself or as much as a fellow person? Absolutely not, because humans have greater value on Judeo-Christianity (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2, Leviticus 24:21).
In a less direct sense, treating animals as morality requires is still about loving God, for they are his creations that also have the breath of life and moral value. Treating people as they deserve is also in a way about loving God, their creator who imbues them with his own image. But loving God goes beyond how one behaves towards any being but God himself. Jesus makes it clear that the obligation described in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 contains all of one's obligations to God, just as the obligation of Leviticus 19:18 links to all the exact obligations one has to others regarding various issues and circumstances. Paul affirms the latter without denying the former and without his philosophy contradicting the former. Neither Jesus nor Paul mentions animals in the passages examined, but does this mean they overlook how the Law deals with them as well? No! And neither does Paul overlook the love owed to God.
[1]. For one of many examples, Exodus 21:26-27 demands the freedom of a slave whose master abuses them, referring to a male or female slave whose eye or tooth is respectively damaged or dislodged. These two body parts are not the only ones this obligation would pertain to. It follows that an abusive injury to a slave's leg or shoulder or toe or any other body part would also nullify any promise of servitude and morally release the slave from any obligation to stay. A great deal of Mosaic Law is like this, providing examples of one thing from which another would follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment