The book of Galatians attests to some highly important doctrines of the New Testament and general Bible, such as how factors like gender and class do not exclude anyone from salvation (3:28), how being unbound from the ultimate consequences of sin does not legitimize sinning (5:13), and how certain qualities or actions are outward evidences that someone remains bent towards evil (5:19-21). The final chapter of the epistle directly builds upon some of Paul's previous statements. For instance, Galatians 5:19-21, as mentioned, lists some key examples of immoral behaviors or dispositions that are called expressions of the flesh (though there are some unspoken nuances [1]), and Galatians 6:7-8 warns that whoever lives for the "flesh" will reap destruction. It is in this exact context that a statement appears which could be easily overlooked, but at the same time, could be incredibly controversial to some.
Paul has just proclaimed that the fate of sinners who do not repent is destruction (6:8a), which utterly excludes endless torture, and he has warned Christians that their participation in the rewards of righteousness, here equated with eternal life (6:8b) in particular as opposed to the eventual nonexistence of true destruction/eternal death, is contingent on them not giving up on righteousness altogether (6:9). In other words, salvation can indeed be lost, says Paul. What a great passage for shocking or offending certain pseudo-Christians who just inherit philosophical ideas from their denomination's traditions!
Having just summarized the primary eschatological reward for righteousness, Paul now encourages Christians to do good—to carry out acts of moral goodness—all the more to or for fellow Christians in verse 10 as shown. In the verse is a definite contrast between other Christians and non-Christians, though the verse does not deny the universality of human rights to be treated or not treated in given ways; non-Christians are not said to be less human or somehow undeserving of being treated as morality requires. What the particulars of this entail is of course only illuminated elsewhere. All people deserve to not be verbally cursed (Exodus 21:17, 22:28, Leviticus 20:9, James 3:9, and so on), to not be murdered (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, 21:12-14, 20-21, etc.), and to be paid their wages before the next sunset (Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:14-15), to give three of many examples.
Paul does not recommend that Christians ignore any such things that the Law, prophetic writings, and even New Testament documents clearly present as unwavering human rights and obligations. But just as obvious as the absence of this sort of asinine recommendation is the fact that he does call for Christians to do even more for each other than for ideological outsiders. First, not all possible acts of benevolence or moral goodness are ethically required. Even a great many loving actions are entirely supererogatory on Biblical ethics. That is, they are morally good without being necessary for someone to be fully upright. There are thus ways to not actually comply with what Paul encourages without actually sinning because going above and beyond in itself cannot be a requirement. Second, Paul's proposed tiers of moral responsibility is still entirely valid in another sense. Biblical Christians are (or are supposed to be) morally superior to typical ideological outsiders, and if good and evil exist, of course the intentionally righteous—or those who at least try to discover and adhere to what is true about morality without making assumptions or living inconsistently—would be literally superior to those who only live for their own persuasions or whims.
Morally superior people would by necessity deserve somewhat better treatment than their moral inferiors. And, as much as many who claim the status of Christian in my country would fiercely object (due to emotionalistic appeal, personal anxiety about their own salvation, church tradition, etc.), even the New Testament with its supposedly "new" doctrines of forgiveness teaches that a true Christian will tend to do or strive for what is morally obligatory (such as in Matthew 3:10, 7:16-20, James 2:14-17, 26) and that a genuine Christian who shirks from their ethical duties might lose their salvation entirely (Ezekiel 33:12-16, Galatians 6:9, Hebrews 6:4-8, and many others). At this point, they would have to repent all over again or they would be killed in the lake of fire just like someone who had never become saved in the first place. Christianity is a thoroughly moralistic religion whether you like it or not, and the idea that being morally correct has no bearing on evidence that someone is saved or on the very continuation of their salvation status is just contra-Biblical.
As Jesus says in John 14:15, whoever loves him will obey his commands. Jesus also conveys in Matthew 7:21-23 that not even performing grand but ultimately supererogatory acts in the name of Christ, like casting out demons, cannot make someone righteous and thus saved if they carelessly or unrepentantly practice evil. His predicted response to those who think their standing is secure because of these secondary and optional accomplishments, as the NIV words it? "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" Moreover, only an apathetic or irrational deity would ignore why someone believes or does something. Doing what is genuinely ethical is woefully, inherently incomplete without holding to the right underlying philosophical stances for the right reasons (which of course reduce down to matters of strict logical fact and possibility) and the right personal motivations behind the actions. Someone who does not care about philosophical truth (and Christianity is inevitably a philosophy, though not true one way or another on its own like metaphysical and epistemological rationalism), who ascribes all sorts of illogical or unbiblical characteristics to God because they find them comforting, and who only does things that happen to be righteous because they subjectively like them or because their society tells them to would certainly not be accepted by a rational, righteous deity.
To an extent, what Paul exhorts Christians to do in Galatians 6:10 does involve inherently supererogatory action, logically rendering many specific expressions of this supererogatory benevolence entirely optional. It also clearly involves explicit tiers of moral concern based upon whether or not the person one is interacting with is a Christian. Human rights would still be possessed by all, and many fundamental obligations exist (according to Judeo-Christianity) towards all people no matter their worldview or actions. A true Christian, in the sense that the Bible qualifies this, would still deserve even better than the baseline righteous treatment owed to even the utterly delusional, the egoistic hypocrites, the bloodthirsty, those who simply do not care about truth and error of any kind, and more who do not willingly pursue truth and morality, which salvific restoration to God is of course intertwined with on Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment