Was Jesus a Liberal? (Part 2)

[Last month we began this study to examine the claim that Jesus was a Liberal. We identified what “liberal” means and examined how Jesus approached Scripture to see if He had a liberal mindset in doing so. This month, we will consider certain events in Jesus’ life and how the teachings of the gospel compared with the precepts of the Law of Moses.]

Events in Jesus’ Life

We can also look at certain events in Jesus’ life to see if He approached things from a liberal perspective. We noticed in the previous section that Jesus did not approach the Scriptures in a liberal manner. But perhaps He was conservative academically, but more liberal in action. It is true that Jesus showed compassion on numerous occasions. One such incident occurred when a leper came to Jesus to be healed by Him (Mark 1:40). The text said that Jesus was “moved with compassion [and] stretched out His hand and touched him,” thus healing him of his leprosy (Mark 1:41). However, despite the claims of Liberals, compassion is not an exclusively liberal attribute. One can show compassion without being liberal. But were there events in the life of Jesus that would lead us to believe that He was a Liberal? Let us look at a couple examples to see if this is the case.

  • The cleansing of the temple – John 2:13-17 records Jesus cleansing the temple. He went to the temple and found “those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables” (John 2:14). Consequently, He “made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out” (John 2:15) because they had made His “Father’s house a place of business” (John 2:16). What these people were doing was associated with the Jewish religion. Of course, merely associating something with religion does not make it right, and what these people were doing was not right. But instead of being tolerant of their fault (whether due to ignorance on their part or not), Jesus drove them out. We should note that Jesus’ objection to them was not based on emotion. It was based upon Scripture. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, Jesus quoted Scripture to offer the reason why He was doing this: “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den” (Matthew 21:13). Their disobedience was not overlooked. It was opposed. And the opposition was not based on emotion, but Scripture.
  • The adulterous woman – In John 8, while Jesus was in the temple teaching (John 8:2), the scribes and Pharisees brought a women caught in adultery to Him to test Him (John 8:3). They told Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:4). They reminded Him what the Law said – “to stone such women” – and then asked, “What then do You say?” (John 8:5). The text plainly says they were asking Him this to test Him so they could later accuse Him (John 8:6). To understand Jesus’ response, let us be reminded of what the Law of Moses taught since that was the standard to which this woman was accountable. Under that law, both “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). But certain measures were to be taken to ensure that no one would be unjustly put to death. Regarding capital offenses, one could only be put to death “on the evidence of two or three witnesses” and “the hand of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). Here we have an accusation, but no witnesses. We have an adulteress, but no adulterer. If witnesses were present, they should have stepped forward to confirm the accusation and would have been “the first to throw a stone” (John 8:7). If there was an adulterer, he should have been brought also. The crowd wanted to circumvent this instruction and put the adulteress alone to death and do so without two or three witnesses. They were being loose (thus, liberal) with the interpretation and application of the Law – not Jesus. In addition to that, after all the accusers left, Jesus told the woman, “Go. From now on sin no more” (John 8:11). This is an awfully strict instruction Jesus gave to her. This goes against the very concept of liberalism.
  • A life of perfect obedience – Peter wrote the Jesus left “an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:21-22). Jesus is our perfect example. He is the perfect example because He “committed no sin.” Hebrews 7:26 describes Him as “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners.” Jesus said, “I always do the things that are pleasing to Him [the Father]” (John 8:29). From these passages and others like them, we see Christ as one who lived in perfect obedience (no sin) in everything. This is not the type of behavior we see from one who does not think strict obedience is necessary.

Jesus’ actions do not show that He was tolerant or accepting of sin. His life does not give the impression that obedience to God is not that important. Peter wrote that Jesus left “an example for you to follow in His steps” (1 Peter 2:21). Jesus’ example shows us we need to strive for perfect obedience, encourage others to be working toward the same, and not turn a blind eye to problems in the area of religion.

Teachings of the New Law

Before Jesus came, Israel was under the Law of Moses. Peter described the Law as “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The writer of Hebrews, after stating that Jesus was “the mediator of a better covenant” explained why this new covenant was necessary: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, ‘Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Hebrews 8:6-8). The problem was not with God’s law, but with “them” – the people. They failed to keep the Law. So a new covenant was necessary wherein God would be “merciful to their iniquities, and…remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12). This was made possible “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). With Jesus came a new covenant and, therefore, a new law.

If it is true that “Jesus brought a radically Liberal theology to the Orthodox believers of his time,” the teachings of the new law should certainly reflect this liberal mindset. The website we mentioned makes the claim that “Jesus was a pluralistic Liberal who taught that one need not conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life.” If their claim is true, then we should expect to see the Law of Christ being less strict than the Law of Moses. Was this the case?

Let us notice some teachings of Jesus. Most of these are specifically contrasted with the Law of Moses. So the comparison will be evident. If Jesus was a Liberal, we should expect to see the teachings of His law to be more lenient than the Law of Moses. Also, most of these teachings are taken from the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse helps serve as an introduction explaining the qualities necessary for one to be a part of Christ’s kingdom. Paul MacDonald, the one behind the Jesus Is A Liberal website, posted an article on the Jesus Is A Liberal Blog on August 23, 2005 in which he cited the Sermon on the Mount as proof that Jesus was a Liberal. Is his claim supported by Scripture? Let us notice some laws instituted by Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount and other places to see if His teachings warrant Him being classified as “liberal.”

  • Murder/anger – “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Matthew 5:21-22). It could be argued that Jesus focused on attitude while the Law of Moses focused on action. The Law said not to do this action – murder. Jesus said not to have this attitude – anger. Actually, the new covenant condemns murder just like the old (Matthew 19:18; Romans 1:29, 32; 13:9; Revelation 21:8). So both laws condemned murder. But Jesus’ teaching was actually stricter than that. Not only should we not commit murder, but we should not even be angry with our brother.
  • Adultery/lust – “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). Likewise, as we noticed with murder, adultery is condemned in the new covenant (Romans 13:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Hebrews 13:4). But in addition to the act of adultery being wrong, Jesus said that even looking at a woman to lust after her is wrong. Jesus did not make the law on adultery looser. He made it stricter.
  • Divorce – “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32). A provision was made in the Law of Moses for a man to divorce his wife because of the Israelites’ “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8). Jesus did not extend this permission. He said the only approved cause that would allow one to put away his/her spouse is fornication committed by the spouse. Without the presence of fornication, one has no right to put away his/her mate.
  • Lying/swearing – “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil” (Matthew 5:34-37). The old law allowed one to make vows, but prohibited the making of false vows. But Jesus instructed the people to not make any vows, regardless of whether or not they were false. Here we see something allowed by the Law of Moses that Jesus prohibited.
  • Retaliation – “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:38-39). Here we see the Law permitted one to retaliate when wronged. Jesus did not offer the same permission. He instructed us to patiently endure instead.
  • Hate/love of enemies – “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). The old law commanded the Israelites to love their neighbor. The new covenant also requires this (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 10:24). Additionally, the teaching of Christ also require us to love our enemies.
  • Division – “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Matthew 10:34-36). Instead of preaching tolerance and unity, Jesus here taught that division is going to come. He even said that He is the cause of the division. The liberal mindset advocates the idea of “unity in diversity.” It abhors division. Yet Jesus stated that division will come and that He will be the cause of it. We should not strive to maintain unity when Jesus is the reason for the division.
  • Judgment – “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29). The Hebrew writer pointed out in this passage the penalty for sin under the old law. Those who were guilty of certain sins were put to death. That may sound awfully harsh to us. Many protest the death penalty, even in cases involving murder. Yet under the Law of Moses, the death penalty was in force for such sins as adultery (Leviticus 20:10), cursing parents (Exodus 21:17), working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), and prophesying falsely (Deuteronomy 13:5). Yet the Hebrew writer explained that we deserve an even “severer punishment” today for disobedience to Christ and His teachings.

From these passages, we see that Jesus’ message was actually more strict than the Law of Moses. No one would argue that the old law was not strict. God was clear as to what He expected of the Israelites. They were to carefully follow His instructions. We noticed earlier that when Jesus was living on the earth, He was careful with His handling of the Scriptures and obeyed the Law perfectly. This was what God required of the Jews. Of course, it was difficult for the Jewish people, but they were expected to obey God’s law. Obedience to Christ’s law was no less important than obedience to the Law of Moses. And again, the teachings of Jesus were stricter than the teachings of the old law. Jesus’ teaching cannot be classified as liberal.


Part 1 | Part 3


.