According to Jesus, he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). If he meant by fulfilling it what many people such as evangelicals say he did, then he would have really abolished it, for they either think that he made the obligations of Mosaic Law obsolete or "exposed" them as incomplete at best and somehow evil at worst (despite coming from a just deity). Not the smallest stroke of the Law will disappear until heaven and earth do (Matthew 5:18), and even then, as long as God exists, so too would the obligations conveyed through Mosaic Law, for they are tied to his nature (Malachi 3:6). Jesus adds that there is a sense in which people who ignore even the least important parts of the Law and teach others to do the same will be least in the kingdom of heaven, lesser in New Jerusalem, than those who did not succumb to their errors (Matthew 5:19). They were not as rational and righteous, after all.
The broad church of America, whether its congregants truly are Christians or are just deceiving themselves into believing they are, fits this description. Its members far more often than not distort, deny, or completely neglect Mosaic Law, which God revealed (Deuteronomy 4) and Jesus affirmed (in addition to Matthew 5:17-19, see Matthew 15:1-20, 18:15-16, and Luke 16:16-17). The cases where Jesus seems to some people to overturn or attack Mosaic Law, replacing it with something "new," are not against God's obligations at all. For instance, Jesus is not saying in Matthew 5:21-22 that murder is fine as long as one is not angry at somebody without cause. What irrationalist would misunderstand it to teach this non sequitur concept? Yet many think he is doing just this with Lex Talionis (which is not what many think [1]) in favor of turning the other cheek (5:38-42), as if the two logically conflict with each other anyway!
The American church, as well as many alleged Christians in recorded history, do exactly what Jesus confronts the Pharisees for doing in Matthew 15. They honor the social constructs of tradition or follow their own personal preferences instead of obeying the real commands of God. Among other things, they are often prudish legalists who might both be crazed about sexuality and condemn many things like nonsexual sensuality, revealing clothing with sexual intentions, or masturbation as if they are in any way sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2). The Bible neither condemns them directly nor says anything from which it follows that these things would be evil. Such things are innocent in themselves. Likewise, they might oppose alcohol, tattoos outside of a pagan context (Leviticus 19:28), gender egalitarianism as a philosophy or in practice (Genesis 1:26-27), opposite gender friendships while married, violent entertainment, wealth in itself, or many other things that are plainly nonsinful according to the Bible since they are neither directly nor indirectly (by logical extension) condemned.
These people will sidestep or be completely opposed to the things Yahweh does prescribe or permit. What of paying workers their wages the very day of their labor (Deuteronomy 24:14-15)? What of executing rapists rather than putting them in prison where they might be raped (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)? What of allowing people to have multiple spouses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17, for example)? What of cancelling the debts of people of their own country every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)? What of treating the foreigner the same as a native-born man or woman (Leviticus 24:16)? What, in addition to these, of not performing unnecessary (Numbers 28:9-10, Matthew 12:1-13) physical labor on the Sabbath and killing the person who refuses to do this (Exodus 35:1-3)? Are any of these ideas things mainstream Christians or "Christians" speak of except usually to dismiss them?
Alleged Christians are thus are not righteous to the extent that they trample upon, resist, or harbor apathy towards Mosaic Law. In the words of their own text, they will at a minimum be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and that it is if they will partake of eternal life in New Jerusalem to begin with. Many people who think they are on the side of Yahweh and Jesus will not be welcomed into paradise in the words of the latter (Matthew 7:21-23); they will all lack the "fruit" that indicates they were righteous in this life (7:15-20). They might think, as seems to be the case with numerous evangelicals, that they love Jesus and in doing so are somehow nullifying the need to do what is just and obligatory, yet even Jesus says loving him is keeping his commands (John 14:15), which are in turn the commands of God. If they make it into New Jerusalem at all, many who call themselves Christians will be among the very least in that eternal city. They did not love Jesus rightly or fully by obeying what he and Yahweh have demanded.
No comments:
Post a Comment