Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today, we are continuing our series on consequentialism with another counter rebuttal, This time against the accusation that my view produces hopeless condemnation. We can best see this accusation represented in the passage we see in Luke 18 where Jesus just said, hey, look, it's almost impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. And then, of course, the people around him said, well, who then can be saved? What hope is there?

What hope do we have? Some are gonna argue that I have set up an ideology which is impossible to follow and simply condemns. It's hopeless. I hope you recognize from the last episode that that I am I am in good company. I think because we identified a lot of aspects about pharisaicalism and and Jesus' call and we recognize that Jesus' way is most definitely harder, that Jesus did not sacrifice holiness, that Jesus called us to be holy and perfect as his father in heaven is perfect.

Right? And we talked about Trifo and we looked at what Trifo said about early Christians about their teachings on God and how he was perfect and had these high expectations. But then Trifo also recognized that they didn't they didn't rest in their own merit, but they rested in the grace of God because, the early Christians recognized that even though their call was holiness, that they were sinners in need of grace. And, that humility and and that desire to be holy both helped to propel them out into the community to love others and be a part of the world and to make no compromises in who they loved. Nevertheless, I think it's important to address this issue specifically since it will inevitably come up.

So this hopeless condemnation in Luke 18 is set up in the story of the famous story of the rich young ruler who comes to Jesus and Jesus says, you know what? Give away all of your stuff and come follow me. And of course, the rich young ruler just can't part with his things. And then Jesus says, hey, it's it's impossible, almost impossible for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven. But what's cool there is, you know, I've always read that story and said, man, that's kinda hopeless.

Like, that's that's not very good. But the author, Luke, does does something very beautiful, and he doesn't he doesn't leave us there if if you're paying attention. Fortunately, I had I can't remember which author led me to this. But I had an author point out this beautiful way that that Luke doesn't leave us hanging with the rich young ruler. And Luke goes into two very important stories immediately following the rich young ruler.

The the first story is really kind of two stories and it's, we see that right after this Retro Young Ruler thing, the disciples who are with Jesus every day and like literally see him every day, are blind to some blind to what he says. Like, Jesus is trying to teach them and they just don't get it. And it's like, why can't you guys get this? You're with you're with Jesus every day. And then we see a blind man who is not with Jesus and is literally blind and can't see Jesus.

But this blind man truly sees Jesus. And so Luke is is putting the these two groups in comparison to each other. These disciples who don't see Jesus and this blind man who does. And then in the third story, Luke beautifully melds all three of these stories. The the rich young ruler, the disciples who should see Jesus but don't, the blind man who doesn't see Jesus but does, he melds them together in the story of Zacchaeus.

Here we have a rich man and a sinner, so he's he's not just rich. Right? A rich man would have had a good chance to be saved because they're probably from a a good family, probably had good education. But this guy was rich. Zacchaeus was rich because he was a tax collector and took advantage of his own people.

He was a sinner. He was evil. And he's rich and Jesus just said that, hey, rich people have a tough time entering heaven. And Zacchaeus isn't blind but he's short, so he can't see Jesus. Right?

He, in fact, he needs to climb a tree in order to see Jesus. But in the story, even though Zacchaeus is up in the tree so he he can try to see Jesus, it's not Zacchaeus who who is is shown seeing Jesus, but it's Jesus who looks up to Zacchaeus and calls Zacchaeus to himself. And then Zacchaeus truly sees Jesus. His blind eyes are open, and Zacchaeus is moved to give his wealth away, not only in reparations but he repays more than is owed. So this the story that that Luke initially sets up seems hopeless.

Right? Who then can be saved? But Luke then shows us who can be saved. Jesus calls to people. He he helps the blind to see.

He changes hearts. He is he is able to save. We don't expect that we will be perfect in our lives. But as as Jesus loves us and as we experience that love, it helps us to see the world differently. Zacchaeus was hopeless.

Zacchaeus was a moral failure, but Jesus saw him and loved him, and through that, Zacchaeus changed. Unlike consequentialism, which says that I need to assess each scenario and determine what morality is based on what ends I perceive I can bring about through them. What I'm arguing in inconsequentialism is that that's not at all how we evaluate things. We maintain faithfulness, and our hope isn't in our evaluation of the ends and figuring out how to best control life. Our hope is in a loving savior who we seek to follow, not because it earns us anything, but because he unconditionally loves us, not based on our actions.

And we wanna obey him because of, of our love for him. You know, rather than being hopelessly condemning, I think that my position is is liberating. I'm not bound to do evil in order to accomplish the results that I desire or the results that I think God desires. I'm not bound to do evil in order to accomplish the results that that I desire. I don't have to chain myself to guilt as I use, step on, or demean others as I try to bring about some desired result.

I don't have to objectify people as I seek to be generous. I don't have to refuse forgiveness to those who don't deserve it. There's nothing in my life which weighs me down. All my sin and burden is laid on Jesus, and I am liberated to live and love. My trust and hope are in Jesus, and I know that he will make all things right.

I can leave results in his hands and live only faithfully. I can leave vengeance in his hands and live in peace. If God can cause the rich to give up their means of power and influence in the world, their money, then perhaps he can do the same in our hearts as he rids us of our need to control things. Perhaps God may conform us to the image of Christ, our savior and example, who also gave up his control and obedient sacrifice. We are to pursue holiness, but our hope is not in our accomplishment of holiness.

It's not in in those ends. Right? Our hope is in Jesus Christ. That's all for now. So peace.

And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean.