It’s a question I never thought about until class the other day. It seems like such an obvious question and I wondered why I never asked it earlier. On the one hand, it goes against our sense of justice to believe that God would have a preference for certain people but on the other, there is no getting around that Jesus went out of His way for the poor, sick, and oppressed.
I believe John Piper does an excellent job for the case for God’s impartiality here. The greatest element for this case is Romans 2:11, “For there is no partiality with God.” But, is the answer that simple? If you’ve read any of my recent entries, you’ll know, it never is.
So this question arises from an emerging theology in South America, namely, Liberation Theology. One of the major premises of liberation theology is that God prefers the poor, oppressed, widowed, etc. over the entitled, rich, elite, etc. There’s certainly scriptural evidence to support this:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed
-Luke 4:18
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
-Mark 2:17
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
-Matthew 25:31-46
We can also see it in his selection of Israel as a chosen people. Yes, Israel was chosen to be a blessing to other nations, but they were still chosen out of many other nations. Could it not be argued that even the doctrine of predestination has an idea of preference in it? Also in the book of Romans, cross referencing Exodus, Paul writes:
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
-Romans 9:18
My friend posits that it only appears this way because the poor, oppressed, etc. are more receptive to God. But if it were just an appearance, what of the verses quoted above that show he was sent to the poor, he has mercy on who he wants, etc.
It’s a conundrum for me. I don’t think it can be answered by an “and/both” since being impartial would, by definition mean, that God can not be partial. What are your thoughts on this seeming paradox?
Ultimately, our theology on preference is not what matters though. What matters is that we, like Jesus, reach out to the poor, oppressed, widowed, prisoned, overlooked, downtrodden, hurting peoples. As Jesus said before the parable of the wedding banquet:
“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
-Luke 13-14
Start by checking out:
http://www.onedayswages.org/
I don’t think God’s “preferential option for the poor” violates God’s impartiality. God’s absolute sovereignty means that God does whatever God wants within God’s character. God’s option for the poor is simply God’s heart. God sees poverty and sickness in a world fallen by sin and he wants to redeem it through the work of the church. Like a mother who pays more attention to a sick child, God’s love for the poor is simply a reflection of who God is. We sometimes spiritualize matters too much. Those who are hungry and sick and thirsty need help and we are called to help. it’s not preference so much as it is loving responsibility.