themusicinnoise-site/blog/posts/0114-christ-was-not-a-revolutionary.html

<p>"Jesus was a revolutionary", "Jesus Christ's revolutionary message",
"the Christian revolution." These are phrases we've probably all heard
before in reference to Jesus Christ and His teachings. Most notably,
the equivocation of Jesus Christ with any kind of revolutionary spirit
tends to come from those who wish to change some fundamental Church
Teaching, and by framing our Lord as a revolutionary, it makes it appear
that such changes are "what Christ would've done", or indeed possible in
the first place. Yet, this makes little to no sense, neither biblically
nor philosophically.</p>

<p>To start, what is a <i>revolution</i>? Well, as the Oxford Dictionary
would define it, a revolution is: "A forcible overthrow of a government
or social order, in favour of a new system." In this case, we know
certainly that our Lord was not trying to overthrow any government. In
fact, He purposefully avoided titles that would associate Him with the
political liberation from foreign powers that the people of Israel had
been hoping for, preferring instead to use the title "Son of Man."
Therefore, it is clear that if one wishes to imply that Jesus caused
some kind of revolution, it would be to the social order and not the
government. But even this is unfounded in any real biblical evidence. In
fact, it's quite the opposite. Jesus makes clear that His mission is not
to change or abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them:</p>

<blockquote>
	"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I
	have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until
	heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a
	letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."<br />
	- Matthew 5:17-18 (NRSVCE)
</blockquote>

<p>However, we do know that Jesus does continuously make efforts to
correct the Pharisees on their interpretation of the Law. So what does
this mean? Did Christ lie when He said He had come to fulfill the Law?
No, it means that, much like many Christians of today, the Pharisees
held to their own traditions rather than those of God. In their pride,
they held their own customs to the same standard as the Law given by
God (or perhaps even higher).</p>

<blockquote>
	"'You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'
	Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the
	commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!'"<br />
	- Mark 7:8-9 (NRSVCE)
</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, it becomes clear that it was not Jesus Christ who was the
revolutionary, but the Pharisees. Our Lord came to fulfill the Law which
the Pharisees had manipulated.</p>

<p>However, even from reason alone we can see how calling Jesus Christ a
revolutionary is illogical. Jesus Christ is God the Son, who has existed
since the beginning, eternally with the God the Father. He is also the
Truth and the Word through which all was made. As God, He is also all
good, and perfect, and <i>ordered</i>. God cannot contradict Himself,
otherwise there would be disorder and falsehood. What Christ teaches is
the same Law with which God created the Universe: Divine &amp; Natural
Law. These have existed since always, and are prior to any Man-made
conceptions of law. As such, since Divine &amp; Natural Law precede
the laws of Men, it would be the laws of Men that are revolutionary, and
Jesus Christ, who upholds Divine &amp; Natural Law a reactionary or
counter-revolutionary.</p>

<p>Now, of course, usually the retort is that although all this is
true, the we say something is revolutionary or not in contrast to the
anthropological social order, not the metaphysical. But even if we
accept such an excuse - which I do not - it encourages certain very
false ideas as to what can and cannot change with regards to Church
Teaching. Namely that fundamental Church Dogmas &amp; Doctrines can be
changed, which they cannot. The idea is that if Jesus came and
<i>revolutionized</i> all that God had revealed to the people of Israel
prior, then who is to say that teachings cannot be revolutionized again?
It calls into question the Dogma of the Church that the fullness of
Divine Public Revelation was received with Jesus Christ, and all we need
to know for our Salvation is present in Sacred Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, which are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church (see
CCC § 74-87)<sup><a href="#r1" >[1]</a></sup>. As such, even if it is
just for the sake of avoiding scandal, we must refrain from calling
Jesus Christ a <i>revolutionary</i>.</p>

<label id="r1" >[1]</label>
<a
	   href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm"
	   target="_blank" >
	   https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
</a>