Jesus: Wall-Builder, Or, Wall-Breaker?

Robert Jeffress confounds me.

As pastor of flagship First Baptist Church of Dallas, Jeffress, is a pastor's pastor.  Yet Jeffress continues to advocate an interpretation of scripture, which is problematic, at best.

Most recently, Jeffress' contention that the Bible condones wall-building as a solution to illegal immigration - because the Bible includes walls in its narrative -- is a stretch of Biblical truth.  Both last week, and in late December, Jeffress contented:

"...'God is not against walls...Walls are not un-Christian...The Bible says even heaven is gonna have a wall around it. Not every one's going to be allowed in...When President Trump is insisting on a wall, he is fulfilling not only his constitutional, but his God-given responsibility and he should not be demonized for doing that..." https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/22/robert-jeffress-responds-luis-gutierrez-border-rant-bible-says-even-heaven-gonna-have

By God-given responsibility, Jeffress is referring to what appears to be Trump's 'Romans 13' 'right and privilege.' 

“…The authorities that exist have been established by God…For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities…”  Romans 13:2; 4-5

I've addressed a proper, contextual, understanding of Romans 13 in previous blogs. http://wwwpaulmundey.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-state-and-sword.html.  Needless to say, it's complicated.  

But bottom-line: God does not contradict Himself -- authorizing the State to bypass His Will -- yet -- commanding the Church, the People of God -- to align with His Will.  

For example, contrary to popular interpretation, the phrase "...bear the sword..." in Romans 13:4 does not give the State permission to use carte blanche violence.  Instead, Romans 13:4 authorizes the State to exercise a policing function, specifically in regard to taxes, and other, similar, State-functions. As Christian Ethics: The Issues of Life and Death notes:  

"...More recent lexical work has emphasized that: 1) the word for sword in Romans 13:4, macaira, denoted a short sword or dagger, thus unsuitable for beheading someone in execution. . . [or other violent acts]; 3) When macaira was used in official contexts it referred not to executions, but to the police force. Thus, Paul is referring to the civil government’s power to force compliance in paying taxes..."  http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/03/st_pauls_romans_13_the_role_of.html

Thus, to say the State has the God-given right to 'bear the sword' -- without limits, with unrestricted violence -- is not a proper interpretation of Romans 13:1ff.  For overall, as Michael Gorman points out:

"...Paul's gospel had an inherently anti-imperial thrust:  Jesus and Caesar cannot both rule the universe.  This dimension of the gospel will mean that Paul cannot in any way espouse a blind nationalism or patriotism; in this respect he agreed with all Jews that there is but one true Lord, and it is not any earthly political figure.  Paul will also agree with his fellow Jews, however, that God poses and disposes human authority (13:1-2)..."  (Michael J. Gorman.  Apostle Of The Crucified Lord:  A Theological Introduction to Paul & His Letters.  Grand Rapids:  Wm Eerdmans, 2017, p. 461) 

It is my contention, that erecting a wall between Mexico and the U.S., as espoused by the current administration, is an act of violence, not sanctioned by scripture, including Romans 13:1ff. As Elisabeth Vallet Director, Center for Geopolitical Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) notes:

 “…There is, in fact, a proven correlation between the fortification of borders and the number of people who die trying to cross them. In the United States, where local advocacy groups actively seek out and disclose this information, 6,000 deaths in the desert along the border have been recorded in the last 16 years...[For] to get across a fortified and tightly controlled border, the available routes are often far more treacherous, pose greater threats and require resorting to smugglers, who are sometimes linked to organized crime groups like the Mafia…[The result: an] increase [in] the violent extortion or coercion of vulnerable migrants (through kidnappings and ransom demands)..." https://theconversation.com/border-walls-are-ineffective-costly-and-fatal-but-we-keep-building-them-80116

This is not to say, border security is unwarranted and not required.  It is.  And research is increasing to surface new, viable, alternatives. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/12/14/this-border-town-doesnt-want-trumps-wall-but-a-silicon-valley-virtual-wall-could-stand-strong.html.  

But erecting a demonstrative, physical barrier is not a wise option as Elizabeth Vallet (and others) document.  In fact -- to be blunt -- a wall is immoral, not only from the perspective of Nancy Pelosi but also scripture.  For under the new covenant, as Paul admonishes, Jesus has come to break walls, not build walls.

 “…But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility…So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens…of the household of God...”  (Ephesians 2:13-19, emphasis added)

Sure, the context of this passage is specifically separation between Gentiles and Jews.  But the intent is wall-breaking between any two or more groups, which are different.  For to paraphrase the opening line of Robert Frost's poem, Mending Wall:  something, there is, about God, that doesn't love a wall.   Continuing with Frost's words:

"...There where it is we do not need the wall: He is all pine and I am apple orchard. My apple trees will never get across And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him. He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours." Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder If I could put a notion in his head: "Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offence. Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down..." (emphasis added)

Sure, poetry scholars tell us, there are multiple messages in Mending Wall. http://www.ericrettberg.com/modernamericanauthors/?p=586.  But I contend that Frost's dominant intent is his last line:  "...Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down..."

It's interesting:  Robert Jeffress and other Christians who support the building of a wall along the Southern Border, cite Biblical examples of walls being encouraged and cited, such as the building of a wall around Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:1-7:73) -- or -- the wall that Revelation portrays around heaven (Revelation 21:12-19).  But Jeffress and others, fail to cite, not only Paul in Ephesians 2, but other scriptures, affirming the wall-breaching preference of God.

“…The world is unprincipled. It’s dog-eat-dog out there! The world doesn’t fight fair. But we don’t live or fight our battles that way…The tools of our trade aren’t for marketing or manipulation, but they are for demolishing that entire massively corrupt culture. We use our powerful God-tools for smashing warped philosophies, tearing down barriers erected against the truth of God, fitting every loose thought and emotion and impulse into the structure of life shaped by Christ. Our tools are ready at hand for clearing the ground of every obstruction and building lives of obedience into maturity…”  (2 Corinthians 10:3-6. The Message, emphasis added).

Recently, I ran across yet another interpretation, of the walls around heaven, portrayed in Revelation 21: 12-19.

"...Saint Peter and the Angel Gabriel had a problem. Peter was sorting people at the Pearly Gates, letting some in, and keeping others out.  But Gabriel was finding more people in heaven than Peter was letting in.  They were befuddled.  Gabriel told Peter to keep working, and he'd get to the bottom of this.  A few hours later Gabriel came back and told Peter not to worry, he'd figured it out.  'It's Jesus.' Gabriel said.  'He's pulling people over the wall!'..."

That's the Gospel.  Not a Wall -- but a Jesus who supersedes Walls.

Sure, relationship to Jesus and His Kingdom, both on earth and in heaven, is costly; Jesus' wall-overriding prowess is not cheap.  But Jesus' wall-overriding prowess is also generous -- pulling us over any barrier, any wall, if, we are surrendered -- through amazing forbearance, compassion, and mercy. For to Jesus:  ...Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down..."

If Jesus wants Walls down (or not built at all) -- we must want Walls down too.

Sure, we need new scrutiny and new savvy at the border.  No doubt.

But not at the expense of the Gospel of Jesus -- that does strive to tear "...down barriers erected against the truth of God -- fitting every loose thought, and emotion, and impulse -- into the structure of life shaped by [Him]...(2 Corinthians 10:5).

A structure defined by another way of living -- and -- border security.