I'm borrowing from a post by Stan at Birds of the Air blog again, not to single him out or to talk about him. It's just that he so consistently represents so well the problems of the sort of conservative evangelicals worldview in which I was raised. In this case, he is talking about Jesus and the Woman Accused of Adultery (story found in John 8). In the story, a woman who was supposedly "caught in the act of adultery" is brought before Jesus by the Pharisees. It goes like this...
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus,
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When
they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
“Let
any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
That is the story literally from the Bible (and with the vital note that the man - who presumably was ALSO "caught in the act of adultery" was not forcibly grabbed and detained by these religious zealots.)
What Stan did, when reading the story (and again, not singling Stan out... this kind of thinking is common in conservative circles when dealing with this story) was to paraphrase Jesus' words thusly...
And when they all slinked away, Jesus addressed the woman. "I'm not
bringing judgment at this time," He told her, but that was not a
dismissal of sin. "Go and sin no more."
No. You're flatly mistaken. What he literally said was...
Neither do I condemn you.
Period.
Jesus did not condemn her. Jesus said clearly and without without a caveat that he did not condemn her. Period.
So many conservatives that I've talked with over the years deal with this text consistently in the same way: First of all, they point out that this passage (the first half of John 8) may not be part of the original text. Then secondly, they ALL proceed to read into the text to something that the text does not say.
In
this text and context, with a bunch of powerful religious male oppressors literally using scripture
to literally try to condemn and kill this woman who they viewed to be a
sinner... in THIS context, Jesus had no condemnation for this
oppressed woman.
This is in fitting with all of Jesus teachings where he took the side of the oppressed over and against the side of the oppressor.. Jesus said that he came to free the oppressed, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the immigrants, women and other marginalized groups who the religious zealots of his day regularly found unclean and unworthy of God.
This is in fitting with all of Jesus teachings where he took the side of the oppressed over and against the side of the oppressor.. Jesus said that he came to free the oppressed, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the immigrants, women and other marginalized groups who the religious zealots of his day regularly found unclean and unworthy of God.
In Stan's one comment (so far) he explained his reasoning as to why he changed Jesus' words to literally the opposite of what Jesus actually said, saying that Jesus DOES stand in judgment of everyone, or will one day. Jesus MUST be this harsh judge against "sin," Stan says...
"or else, we have a problem..."
"or else, we have a problem..."
Ah. Very insightful (if accidentally) of Stan. This
is precisely what the pharisees of Jesus' day had to say, too. This is
precisely part of the reason why they felt they had to kill Jesus. They
DID have a problem.
The theology of the Pharisees (and way too often, too many modern conservative evangelicals - and even some who aren't conservative or evangelical), requires a harsh, deadly, condemn all sin to the utmost kind of god. Without that killer god on in their pocket, they lose their power to control women, foreigners, the poor and marginalized.
And part of their problem in this story was their willingness to condemn this sinner who Jesus literally did not condemn. But, they would have insisted (the Pharisees and too many modern evangelicals), all sin requires condemnation.
Jesus literally and specifically disagreed.
Jesus literally and specifically disagreed.
Stan further tries to explain why he negates the words of Jesus...
"Indeed, to suggest that Jesus didn't care about sin is to require that Jesus didn't care about justice and, in fact, denies His deity"
"Indeed, to suggest that Jesus didn't care about sin is to require that Jesus didn't care about justice and, in fact, denies His deity"
This is, of course, ridiculous and unbiblical and anti-christian. That is, literally contrary to the words of Jesus.
Jesus
told this woman literally that he did not condemn her and that was
precisely an act of Justice against the ongoing oppression of the
religious pharisees. As a matter of Justice, Jesus stood against the
religious pharisees and their oppression. Because of Jesus standing
against their oppression as a matter of Justice, the pharisees went
against any sense of Justice and eventually plotted and killed Jesus.
Which side do you want to be on, Stan? Jesus? Or the pharisees?
It's
interesting and sad that Stan's community of evangelicals view condemnation to be an essential attribute of
God. Jesus and The Bible and the Gospels teach us that God is a God of
love and grace and Justice, especially for the historically oppressed
and especially and specifically against the religious zealots who would
use The Bible and God against the oppressed.
Just as a point of clarity, to note the reality that this text has Jesus saying literally "Neither do I condemn you," is not the same as saying that Jesus doesn't care about sin. Indeed, the reason for the stand he took here against the Pharisees was because of the sin of the Pharisees, using/misusing the Scriptures and "god" as their tool for control. Jesus WAS concerned about sin... the sin and oppression and exclusionary practices/policies of the Pharisees.
And noting that reality does NOT require that we think Jesus didn't care about justice - again, just the opposite - and that reality in no way denies Jesus' deity. That's just an empty claim built on poor reasoning.
"Or else, we have a problem."
Indeed.
Just as a point of clarity, to note the reality that this text has Jesus saying literally "Neither do I condemn you," is not the same as saying that Jesus doesn't care about sin. Indeed, the reason for the stand he took here against the Pharisees was because of the sin of the Pharisees, using/misusing the Scriptures and "god" as their tool for control. Jesus WAS concerned about sin... the sin and oppression and exclusionary practices/policies of the Pharisees.
And noting that reality does NOT require that we think Jesus didn't care about justice - again, just the opposite - and that reality in no way denies Jesus' deity. That's just an empty claim built on poor reasoning.
"Or else, we have a problem."
Indeed.
48 comments:
"It's just that he so consistently represents so well the problems of the sort of conservative evangelicals worldview in which I was raised."
We hear this from you so often, but based on everything you say, either those "conservative evangelicals" of your past were ignorant morons, or you were no more possessed of an even average level of comprehension and understanding then you exhibit now. Given I don't know any of those alleged " conservative evangelicals", it must be Option 2.
"No. You're flatly mistaken. What he literally said was...
Neither do I condemn you."
No. Stan wasn't denying what Scripture presents His words as being. He was commenting on the limitation of what He said. There are several verses from Scripture asserting Jesus didn't come to condemn, but to preach repentance to avoid the condemnation continued misbehavior will bring about. Other verses in Scripture teach us Jesus will be our ultimate Judge in the end. Thus, condemning the woman now gives her opportunity for salvation...to hear and accept the Good News Jesus brought to the spiritually impoverished and enslaved by sin. In the meantime, the woman, as are we all, are condemned by our own sinful deeds and rebellion against the will of God.
The most salient point...which is unassailable fact...is Jesus had no earthly authority to condemn anyone as it was a civil matter for the Jewish officials to decide, not for Jesus. And they weren't using this woman to get final judgement upon her, but to simply get Jesus to publicly render an opinion which they hoped to exploit to turn either the people or the Romans against Him.
"In this text and context, with a bunch of powerful religious male oppressors literally using scripture to literally try to condemn and kill this woman who they viewed to be a sinner.."
This is an absurd and perfectly "progressive" (read: buffoonish) and "woke" (read: a lie) to put it. There's nothing in the story which suggests they gave a flying rat's ass about the woman's alleged sinful behavior. Their sole purpose was to trap Jesus. There's no indication of any kind regarding their intentions toward the woman beyond using her to trap Jesus.
"This is in fitting with all of Jesus teachings where he took the side of the oppressed over and against the side of the oppressor."
The only "oppressor" with whom Jesus concerned Himself was Satan, or sin.
"Jesus said that he came to free the oppressed, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the immigrants, women and other marginalized groups who the religious zealots of his day regularly found unclean and unworthy of God."
Cite the specific verses where Jesus uses each of these terms or apologize to Stan for editorializing...though far more accurately and true to the spirit of Scriptural teaching than you ever provide.
"In Stan's one comment (so far) he explained his reasoning as to why he changed Jesus' words to literally the opposite of what Jesus actually said, saying that Jesus DOES stand in judgment of everyone, or will one day."
But Stan changed nothing, and the second half of your comment is the truth. Jesus will stand in judgement of us all. It is YOU who wants to pretend Jesus forgave the woman by saying He wouldn't condemn her for the crime for which there were now no accusers. Several verses in Scripture show Jesus specifically forgiving a person's sins, yet He doesn't do so here while definitely acknowledging she did indeed sin. Thus, she was "judged" guilty.
"Jesus told this woman literally that he did not condemn her and that was precisely an act of Justice against the ongoing oppression of the religious pharisees."
It was precisely the only option He had given He had no civil authority to do so, there were no witnesses present to charge her or testify against her. Jesus wasn't about opposing the Pharisees or fighting "the Man!". Jesus was about bringing clarity to the Law. Notice He told no one NOT to stone the woman. He merely suggested the first stone should be thrown by the sinless person among the accusers. Clearly, they were all aware of their own shortcomings, as were any other people witnessing the challenge they put to Jesus. If there's a lesson here, it's akin to "remove the plank from your own eye".
The other lesson was how easy it was for Jesus to make these dudes look as buffoonish as a Louisville "progressive".
"It's interesting and sad that Stan's community of evangelicals view condemnation to be an essential attribute of God."
It's typical and pathetic how you continue to demonstrate absolutely no understanding of conservatism of any kind. A just God will condemn many. That's an essential truth progressives, at best gloss over and at worst assert isn't even true...much to the eternal detriment if those you influence...which entitles you to a special place in hell. Here's an example of how you mislead:
"Indeed, the reason for the stand he took here against the Pharisees was because of the sin of the Pharisees, using/misusing the Scriptures and "god" as their tool for control. Jesus WAS concerned about sin... the sin and oppression and exclusionary practices/policies of the Pharisees."
This suggests things like homosexual behavior, murdering one's own child in utero and others of the many forms of sinful behaviors...especially those progressives enable or perpetuate in their distinct Pharisaical manner...are of no concern.
Marshal... " A just God will condemn many."
Many? Not all?
Will a "just" god condemn many to an eternity in torment?
Will a "just" "god" condemn MOST to an eternity in torment?
What does it take for this "just" "god" to find a human worthy of being condemned for an eternity of torment? One single lie? Two? ("I didn't steal that cookie..." being two lies), would that qualify as "worthy" of an eternity in torment according to this "just" "god," as you understand "justice..."?
Marshal... "There are several verses from Scripture asserting Jesus didn't come to condemn, but to preach repentance to avoid the condemnation continued misbehavior will bring about. Other verses in Scripture teach us Jesus will be our ultimate Judge in the end."
Interesting. Let's pursue this line of thinking.
Here is EVERY instance of "condemn" or "condemnation" spoken by Jesus...
I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
and...
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
and...
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it
Matt 12
(Jesus condemning the religious Pharisees for condemning the innocent.)
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death
~Matt 20
(Jesus pointing to how the religious Pharisees were wrongly condemning.)
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
~Matt 23
(AGAIN, Jesus speaking of the religious zealots being condemned... Hm... I'm spotting a trend.)
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.
~Matt 27
(Jesus being condemned by the Pharisees.)
...
“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles
~Mark 10
“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.
~Mark 14
(We find "condemned" being used twice in Mark in reference to the Pharisees condemning Jesus. And also this one, in a section that may not have been in the original text...)
Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
~Mark 16
(ONE time in a questionable section where we see Jesus using the term in reference to those who "don't believe..." but then, that raises the question of what it means to Believe.)
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
~Luke 6, Sermon on the Plain
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them...
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it...
~Luke 11
(in comments directed towards the religious zealots/Pharisees.)
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
~John 3
(God did NOT come to condemn the world, but save it. And then the next verse again raises the question of what it means to "believe in" Jesus. Jesus expands on this, still in John 3, saying...)
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light
(and WHO is it that Jesus keeps pointing to as being those who "do evil..."? Is it the sexually immoral? No. Is it the poor, the marginalized, the sick and oppressed whom Jesus specifically said he'd come to preach the good news? No.
It's the pharisees and the zealously, harshly judgmental religious ones.)
Out of time...
So you post numerous verses which do not have any relevance whatsoever to my factual assertion regarding Christ not being sent to condemn. You must've had time to kill, but it would've been time better spent seriously and prayerfully studying the Scripture you so willingly abuse to support unChristian positions.
A great example comes at the end of your last comment, wherein you finally cite the clearest verse proving my assertion about Christ not having been sent to condemn. You then pervert what follows in two ways:
1. Presuming what "believe in Jesus" means is somehow ambiguous and up for debate. It might be if you're Bill Clinton, but not if you're truthfully a serious and prayerful student of Scripture.
2. Where does Jesus say He's thinking primarily or only of the Pharisees when referencing "everyone who does evil"? Please supply that verse for consideration. I'm calling you out for yet again inserting your preferred invention (not "interpretation") into Christ's words...something you pretend those like Stan, Craig and myself do when the truth is too much for you to overcome.
2a. Where does Jesus ever mention "the marginalized"? Please provide the verse for consideration.
So once again, given Jesus wasn't sent to condemn the world, but to save it, it's not surprising He didn't condemn the adulterers, but sought to save by encouraging her to sin no more.
One is condemned after being found guilty. One who sins clearly IS guilty, thus to sin is to condemn one's self. To repent and come to Christ is have guilt not held against one, if not eliminated entirely. But if the adulteress fails to repent and come to Christ, condemnation will follow. This is what Stan meant by "not yet". Sure, Jesus didn't condemn her when all who accused her basically dropped the case by walking away (for all the reasons provided above), but she still risks condemnation for the charge against her if she fails to repent and come to Christ.
Marshal... "I don't see the value in going over it again..."
If you see no value in "going over again" and don't want to answer the reasonable questions put to you, then just shut up. Don't come here to admit you're not going to answer these reasonable questions.
Pretty simple, eh?
Marshal... "You must've had time to kill, but it would've been time better spent seriously and prayerfully studying the Scripture"
The topic of this post is condemnation. I pointed out the reality that Jesus, in the passage in question, said literally "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU." Period. Not Stan's re-interpretation of "I'm not going to condemn you... TODAY, but ONE DAY I will and I will punish you for an eternity..."
You added to the "ONE DAY I will condemn you..." theme with your words. I just thought it rationally would make sense to look at every instance of Jesus speaking of condemnation.
And what do we see?
A. That Jesus saved ALL his harshly critical rebukes and condemnation FOR THE RELIGIOUS POWERFUL ones - the Pharisees who were using and abusing "scripture" and "god" to put down and oppress the poor, the immigrants, women and the otherwise marginalized.
That is the reality of the stories and words of Jesus in the gospels. Can you admit that this is the reality?
B.We also see that Jesus has NO harsh condemnations for the "typical" working class sinners - the prostitutes, the poor thieves, the sexually "immoral," etc.
Again, NO HARSH CONDEMNATION for typical people in the Gospels from Jesus. He saves it exclusively for the scribes and Pharisees.
Agreed?
C. What conclusions might we reasonably draw from these instances of Jesus using harsh condemnation for the religious zealots/abusers of authority and none for typical sinners?
More on that later.
To deal with your 1, 2 and 2a.
1. I am NOT saying that "believe in Jesus" is ambiguous. I'm saying I think it's clear and you conservatives are not "getting it..." YOU must think it's ambiguous, by that reasoning.
2. He doesn't. But as I've pointed out, A. He saves his harsh criticism for the rich and powerful religious and civic leaders, B. Is kind and compassionate to "typical sinners" ("Neither do I condemn you," he said, after saving her life from the ones for whom Jesus DID have harsh criticism for.)
Given the whole arc of Jesus' actual teachings, one sees a clear and unmistakable (not ambiguous in ANY way to a dispassionate reader without ties to partisan traditions - but again, apparently you find it ambiguous) trend of saying "Watch out for the sins of the Pharisees" towards the rich and powerful abusers and "God sent me to love and save you all" to the rest of us.
2a. I've pointed out the obvious to you multiple times. Stop asking this inane and already answered question. It will henceforth be ignored. Jesus SAID he'd come to preach good news to the POOR, healing for the SICK, freedom for the CAPTIVE, inclusion for WOMEN, to watch out and side with the POOR, ORPHANS, the IMPRISONED, the ELDERLY, IMMIGRANTS (following in the OT prophetic tradition)...
ALL of these groups are groups that have traditionally been marginalized and that was especially true in Jesus' day. Just as a point of reality. In Jesus' day, the poor, women, the sick, they were kept OUT and AWAY as unclean and unfit to be in God's presence or in the presence of the Good Pharisees or the Temple. They were very literally marginalized and, as a result, often oppressed, abused, neglected and mistreated.
Do you not understand that reality? So, rather than list out every time, "Jesus came speaking a message specifically to, for and with the poor, immigrants, women, children, orphans, the imprisoned, etc, etc, etc... instead of that big list, I will often make the reasonable paraphrase, "The poor and otherwise marginalized..."
Do you seriously think that is a mistake?
If so, you're just factually and rationally mistaken.
Regarding the difference between how Jesus deals with the typical sinners vs the rich and powerful abusers, I think of it like this:
1. Jesus almost never singles out typical sins (ie, the "sins" that modern conservatism and ancient pharisaism liked to focus on - sexual "sins," homosexuality, adultery, simple theft by the poor in an effort to stay alive, etc) and never does in a harsh manner.
2. When Jesus does speak of more every day sins, he tends to handle it like the "sin" of working on the Sabbath: By expanding on the POINT of the law in question. In the case of working on the Sabbath, he makes it abundantly clear that the point of that rule was "Never do anything on Saturday" but the point was that WE HUMANS need periods of rest and relaxation. It's for our benefit to take time off. The SABBATH WAS MADE FOR US, for our kind benefit - and not the other way around (Humans created to slavishly observe not working on Saturdays). The latter is the Pharisaical way of taking the law - to oppress, chastise, deny, denigrate, attack and to posture.
In the case of the Woman and Man caught in Adultery and the Man being released but the Woman being Detained, Kidnapped and Brought for public Humiliation and Stoning before God/Jesus, Jesus responded with compassion and love AFTER saving her life from her oppressors/tormenters (Pharisees), "Neither do I condemn you... Go, and sin no more."
He's not saying (in the case of the Sabbath) that NOT resting isn't "wrong..." He's saying that the rule is for OUR SAKE and strive to adhere to it so that we find that rest we need. (And this is especially a vital message for the poor and working class, by the way). The rule is a loving guideline, not a tool for attacking/humiliating/abusing.
He's not saying (in the case of adultery) that sleeping around indiscriminately (if that's even the case in a society where women had no/few rights and were treated as chattel) is NOT something to be concerned about. The point is the rule is a guideline there for our protection, NOT a tool for shame and oppression and killing.
3. Which is not to say that there are no sins that DON'T make Jesus very angry. It's the sins of the Pharisees and the religious zealots who use and abuse "god" and "lay upon people's backs rule upon rule that weighs them down..." who use and abuse scripture to attack and to further marginalize and demonize and even kill.
The sins of the Pharisees DO make Jesus angry and that's because they are the tools of the oppressor, the ones who attack, demonize, marginalize and oppress the poor and otherwise marginalized. ALL of Israel's history had been a story against that sort of oppression and Jesus carried that forward in his Gospel which, again, he claimed was specifically for the poor and marginalized.
So again:
A. With typical sins/breaking of guidelines there for our ease and care, the response is Remember these guidelines and treat them like guidelines - I DO NOT CONDEMN YOU, but go, and don't do those things which cause harm to you. Take rests, live within reasonable limits, etc. Love, patience, kindness, compassion.
B. With the sins of oppression and causing harm to the innocent, poor and marginalized: BITTER anger and strong opposition, harsh words of rebuke, condemnation and harsh words of judgment.
That is the story found in the gospels.
Read it. Check it out. See if that isn't so.
And just to build on the difference between the two... We see patience in Jesus in dealing with typical sins, and NO calling out of that sin as wrong. BUT, with the rebukes of the sins of the pharisees, we see NO patience... no - or at least very little - recognition of them being frail and fallible human beings just making a mistake.
And why is that? Because, I'd suggest, the sins of oppression, domination and abuse of the marginalized by the rich and powerful, has immediate, harsh, harmful and deadly consequences for the victims of the oppressors. AND they marginalized have been historically oppressed... it's part of an ongoing sin of what we might broadly call oppression and it's past time to end these harmful and deadly sins with devastating immediate and longterm debilitations/results. Because of the generational harm involved in these sins for which Jesus had little to no patience.
Setting aside all your traditions and biases as much as possible and just looking at the Gospels as a student, Marshal, can you at least affirm the reality that all of Jesus' harsh and specific rebukes were for the oppressive policies/sins of the Pharisees, the rich and powerful?
And you can answer this if you want, Marshal... WHY do you think Jesus' harsh rebukes were only for the rich, powerful and Pharisees?
"The topic of this post is condemnation."
The topic of this post is you trying to pretend you can shred Stan's analysis of what "Neither do I condemn you" doesn't mean. You now present numerous verses which are...with one or two exceptions...entirely irrelevant to the story of the adulteress or the point that Jesus was not sent to condemn the world. Let look at your offerings:
1. This is about the Pharisees condemning, not Jesus. This offering is worthless in this discussion.
2. This suggests the Pharisees will be condemned by their own words, or they will be condemned at a later date, as will all, including the adulteress, if they continue their sinful ways.
3. This references the men of Nineveh and the Queen if the South doing the condemning. Not relevant at all. Keep in mind, the topic is based on why Jesus didn't condemn the woman at the time she was accused by those who basically dropped the case against her.
4. Again, irrelevant as the chief priests and teachers of the law are condemning Jesus.
5. Ah! Another example of future condemnation for current sinfulness. But alas, Jesus is not condemning at that point. I'm seeing a trend of Jesus not condemning...yet.
6. Jesus was already condemned...but not by...uh...Jesus.
7 & 8. Jesus not condemning, and thus the passages have no relevance to the post.
9. People condemning themselves by their rejection of Christ...even if they only steal one single cookie.
10. People condemning themselves again.
11 & 12. Repetitive. Already covered. Must be filler to make it seem like you have overwhelming evidence for your position.
13. This is the basis of my position regarding why Jesus didn't condemn the adulteress, aside from the legal limitations of Jesus having no authority under Jewish law to put anyone to death, to say nothing of Roman law.
It goes on to explain what might result in an eternity of suffering, even if only a single cookie was stolen. So thanks for the help, but I already knew that.
"and WHO is it that Jesus keeps pointing to as being those who "do evil..."?"
This is fantasy, as I mentioned before.
"I am NOT saying that "believe in Jesus" is ambiguous. I'm saying I think it's clear and you conservatives are not "getting it...""
Yeah. You keep telling yourself that. When you think you can back that up, let me know with an actual argument.
"Given the whole arc of Jesus' actual teachings, one sees a clear and unmistakable trend of saying "Watch out for the sins of the Pharisees" towards the rich and powerful abusers and "God sent me to love and save you all" to the rest of us."
The only "one" who sees that are socialist wackos like you. God did NOT send Christ to save on the basis of wealth, status or anything like that. It's absurdity of an extreme level. Right up your alley.
Gotta go.
Marshal, unsupported claims - especially stupidly false and unsupported claims - will be deleted. IF you want to make an accusation, 1. Be clear what in the world you're talking about and, 2. Support the claim IF it's a fact claim.
If you merely want to say, "I think, although I can't prove it and it's just a baseless accusation, that you're mistaken..." that's fine. Just make sure it's an unsupported and baseless opinion you're offering, not a fact claim.
Marshal... "The topic of this post is you trying to pretend you can shred Stan's analysis of what "Neither do I condemn you" doesn't mean. You now present numerous verses which are...with one or two exceptions...entirely irrelevant to the story of the adulteress or the point that Jesus was not sent to condemn the world. Let look at your offerings:
1. This is about the Pharisees condemning, not Jesus. This offering is worthless in this discussion."
? What in the world are you talking about?
You said this in response to my citing this Gospel passage:
I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
and...
"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
My point in citing these passages was to point out that
1. Jesus just generally didn't condemn "sinners" here on earth... his teachings were NOT about condemnation, but about grace and an open reception, specifically and especially to the marginalized (and don't you dare say anything more about "marginalized." I've explained myself. Bringing that up as a red herring will also result in a deletion.)
2. And when Jesus DID condemn "sinners" and did so harshly, it was always the rich, powerful and judgmental and presumptuous religious leadership - the Pharisees.
My citing this verse (where it WAS the Pharisees doing the condemning) is pointing to that reality.
So, when you respond saying, "this is about the Pharisees condemning..." ??? YES! That is the point I'm making. Jesus used the word and idea of "condemnation" to condemn the condemners. That's the point I'm making.
Do you understand that?
Marshal... "It is worthless in this discussion..."
So, is it the case that you just utterly failed to understand why I was citing these verses? If so, do you NOW understand why it's precisely the point I'm making and thus, not "worthless..."?
Or is it the case that you're trying to change the topic and ignore the points I'm actually making. If you want to talk about something else, go somewhere else to talk about it.
Marshal... "2. This suggests the Pharisees will be condemned by their own words, or they will be condemned at a later date, as will all, including the adulteress, if they continue their sinful ways."
So, is it the case that you are saying that when Jesus said, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU..." that Jesus had some asterisk on that, as if to say, "Neither do I condemn you... NOW, right here in this place... but later on, I'm gonna condemn the hell out of you and punish you and smite you and all that angry god shit..."?
If so, then can you acknowledge that saying "welllll... I'm not going to condemn you now for this... but LATER..." is not the same as what Jesus literally said: "Neither do I condemn you. Period."..? Indeed, it's sort of the opposite, right?
One more point of Marshal's to address and then I'll wait to see if he'll answer the questions put to him.
Marshal... "The only "one" who sees that are socialist wackos like you."
Marshal is saying this in response to my saying that biblical readers can see how from beginning to the end of the Gospels, Jesus has a clear concern for and message specifically to and for the poor - and warnings for the rich. Marshal mocks that as something that not everyone sees, only the "socialists..."
Can you admit that this is false? That I can start pointing to traditionalists and evangelicals and some conservative types who do not deny what is right before any biblical readers eyes - Jesus' gospel for the poor.
Here's a quick review of this point. I think it's an interesting topic and may be worth pursuing. I'm relatively certain that the notion of a Gospel that is predicated upon Jesus' own admission of his mission to preach good news specifically to the poor, etc would be found in very traditional, conservative groups like the Nazarene, Methodist, Amish, Mennonite, Presbyterian, some Baptist and Catholic churches... among others. Just look to the Great Awakening revivals or the beginnings of the Social Gospel movement... While these WERE often led by "radicals," they were often quite traditional and conservative radicals.
Are you aware of all that history in conservative Christianity?
John Wesley saw it (even if he was inconsistent in his understanding and application of it).
https://www.tyndale.ca/sites/default/files/u/226/Burke%20lecture%20Salvation%20for%20Both%20Worlds_0.pdf
https://medium.com/meta-theology/good-news-to-the-poor-john-wesleys-evangelical-economics-fa4c6d1a0bc5
Or the Social Gospel originators (well, besides Jesus as the original originator)...
https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07032009/profile2.html
Or those involved in the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney, for instance.
I'm out of time. May research more.
The point is, this line of thinking is hardly limited to what you falsely demonize as "socialist." Can you acknowledge that reality or do I need to do the research to show it to you?
All of Black Theology sees it. All of Black Theology.
Howard Thurman. James Cone. Gayraud Wilmore. MLK. Shawn Copeland. And on and on.
"James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression."
"1. Be clear what in the world you're talking about and, 2. Support the claim IF it's a fact claim."
When you start doing that, so will I. But the reality is I've always been more forthcoming with support for my positions...even opinions...than you have yet to be. THAT is a fact.
...he said, vaguely, baselessly and with no support.
And yes, Feodor. Great point.
I'm going to jump ahead a bit and attempt to provide a little reality check for you, and I'll fill in details for what came in between in necessary.
"And you can answer this if you want, Marshal... WHY do you think Jesus' harsh rebukes were only for the rich, powerful and Pharisees?"
They weren't. In John 7:7 Jesus said that the WORLD hated Him, not just the Pharisees, because He testified that their works were evil. In Matthew 11:23 Jesus told an entire city that they were going to hell, not just Pharisees. Revelations 3 says Jesus rebukes as many as He loves. If Jesus never rebuked sinners but only the Pharisees, it would mean Jesus only loved the Pharisees.
But unlike other sinners, the religious leaders were directly attacking Jesus with accusations and attempts to entrap Him, which was the case with the woman "caught" in adultery. And the fact of that matter is He did not "choose" to withhold condemnation, but had no legal authority to do so. As so many of your listed verses indicate so clearly, we condemn ourselves by our sinful behaviors. Our fate is already set should we continue in our sinful ways. No one...not even God...needs to condemn us. The point of Christ's ministry...the "Good News" you wrongly insist was brought only to the materially poor...the "marginalized"...was the Kingdom of God, which can only be accessed through Christ.
So, with the jerks attacking Him in one way or another on a regular basis, it only stands to reason that they would be more publicly and routinely rebuked by Christ, whereas with others, like the adulteress, He did not need to be so harsh. If the "regular" sinners persisted in their sin, and defended themselves the way the Pharisees did, do you really think Christ would treat them any differently than the way He rebuked the Pharisees? If the Pharisees in question repented, do you think He would rebuke them as severely? Your entire premise is flawed.
I would add that for the sake of telling the story of Christ having come to offer up Himself on our behalf, it only makes sense to present those cases where those He rebukes will be eventually plotting to see Him killed. The "regular" sinners did not participate in that until a percentage of them were persuaded at the end to demand Christ's execution.
"Marshal, unsupported claims - especially stupidly false and unsupported claims - will be deleted. IF you want to make an accusation, 1. Be clear what in the world you're talking about and, 2. Support the claim IF it's a fact claim."
Here's a better idea: if you think I'm making any "unsupported claims - especially stupidly false and unsupported claims", rather than delete them like a coward and in doing so lend greatly validity and credibility to my claims, bring evidentiary support proving my claims false. I know that's going to be hard for you, given my claims rarely are false (I won't make a claim in which I don't have full confidence), but you might have the pleasure of making me look foolish...assuming that's possible at all.
Gotta go.
Regarding Matthew 11, and to expand and give actual thought to Marshall's satisfaction with mere listing, Jesus, across Matthew and Luke, condemns three Galilean cities: Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. And Jesus references Sodom which, with Tyre and Sidon, were condemned by God in the Hebrew Scriptures.
(And, of course, God did not condemn everyone in Sodom as he condemned the town: he saved one family.
So, three Gentile towns in our OT are condemned. But three Jewish towns where Jesus performed many signs are condemned in the NT: and not because of lifestyle of hedonism and brutalizing foreigners like Sodom. But for not believing in Jesus.
This is why Marshal and the goons are in a love/hate relationship with Sharia law: they, too, want a theocracy in order to brutalize those who don't share their 17th century Genevan faith while escaping any interrogation of their love of brutality.
"So, is it the case that you just utterly failed to understand why I was citing these verses?"
I understand that you want me to believe you had a reason beyond deflecting from the point of the post...attacking Stan's position on "Neither do I condemn you"...because none of it addresses that point.
"Or is it the case that you're trying to change the topic and ignore the points I'm actually making."
But it's you trying to change the topic by introducing "points" irrelevant to that discussion. I've been trying to stick to the point and I've supported Stan's position by presenting Scripture which says Jesus wasn't sent to condemn. You're now trying to say that Jesus is condemning the Pharisees. He isn't. Rebuke, yes. Condemn, no.
"So, is it the case that you are saying that when Jesus said, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU..." that Jesus had some asterisk on that, as if to say, "Neither do I condemn you... NOW, right here in this place..."
No. That's Stan's position, which I've only acknowledged. I've proven that it is not something Jesus came to do, and thus is not remarkable that He wouldn't condemn the adulteress. I've also distinguished my position from his by affirming Scripture teaches we're already condemned by our sinful actions and nature. That is, we're condemned right out of the box (or womb) and there's no condemnation by God necessary...or more to the point, the condemnation had already taken place at the Fall of Man. Our destination is already booked and only our acceptance of Christ alters it to a more pleasing one. This is all Christianity 101 stuff.
"Marshal mocks that as something that not everyone sees, only the "socialists..."
Can you admit that this is false?"
No, and none of your links provides any reason why I should. I'm not a student of Wesley, but what you've provided doesn't do any more than pretend he's in the same camp as you are without providing any evidence. By that, I mean he's not quoted...even obliquely...as agreeing with you about what Christ meant by why He came. To speak about the Christian duty to care for the "marginalized"...as you like to put it... is not the same as insisting "I bring Good News to the poor" means the materially poor, when there is Scriptural evidence it means "poor in spirit".
It's also crystal clear that those links are provided by leftists who think like you do. That isn't evidence. That's just the opinions of those who think like you do.
"The point is, this line of thinking is hardly limited to what you falsely demonize as "socialist." Can you acknowledge that reality or do I need to do the research to show it to you?"
Yes. You should support your truth claim with evidence, data and such, just as you demand of me and others who disagree with you. Your word for it won't cut it. And your insistence you're the one dealing in reality is tired and no more true than it's ever been. Not without the level of evidence you demand of me but never bring.
I condemn Marshal for his fake belief that Trump won. And so does the GOP run review of the Arizona election.
“After months of delays and blistering criticism, a review of the 2020 election in Arizona’s largest county, ordered up and financed by Republicans, has failed to show that former President Donald J. Trump was cheated of victory.
Instead, the report from the company Cyber Ninjas said it found just the opposite: It tallied 99 additional votes for President Biden and 261 fewer votes for Mr. Trump in Maricopa County, the fast-growing region that includes Phoenix.”
I condemn Marshal for his vicious hatred toward democracy and his fellow citizens.
"After all the scurrying, searching, sifting, speculating, hand-counting and bamboo-hunting had ended, Republicans’ post-mortem review of election results in Arizona’s largest county wound up only adding to President Biden’s margin of victory there.
But for those who have tried to undermine confidence in American elections and restrict voting, the actual findings of the Maricopa County review that were released on Friday did not appear to matter in the slightest. Former President Donald J. Trump and his loyalists redoubled their efforts to mount a full-scale relitigation of the 2020 election."
https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/24/arizona-audit-finds-over-50000-illegal-votes-discrepancies-due-to-either-malicious-actions-or-severe-incompetence/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/its_fake_news_that_the_maricopa_audit_proves_biden_won.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/what_should_we_make_of_the_2020_election_audit_in_arizona.html
Marshal can’t even summon the energy to lie. He just points to spewers of lies. Marshal wants to be adopted by the Father of Lies.
Jesus does not condemn. Neither does Paul. In fact, Paul knows that Gentiles, like all people, have a conscience which can save them, even if ignorant of Jesus Christ.
"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."
And Martin Luther concurs.
"…Conscience is not the power to do works, but to judge them. The proper work of conscience (as Paul says in Romans 2:15), is to accuse or excuse, to make guilty or guiltless, uncertain or certain. Its purpose is not to do, but to pass judgment on what has been done and what should be done, and this judgment makes us stand accused or saved in God's sight."
I asked Marshal a question...
And you can answer this if you want, Marshal... WHY do you think Jesus' harsh rebukes were only for the rich, powerful and Pharisees?"
And Marshal responded...
They weren't. In John 7:7 Jesus said that the WORLD hated Him, not just the Pharisees, because He testified that their works were evil.
Let's look at John 7...
After this, Jesus went around in Galilee.
He did not want to go about in Judea because
the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.
But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near,
Jesus’ brothers said to him,
“Leave Galilee and go to Judea,
so that your disciples there may see the works you do.
No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret.
Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”
For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
Therefore Jesus told them,
“My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.
The world cannot hate you,
but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil.
You go to the festival.
I am not going up to this festival,
because my time has not yet fully come.”
Marshal, IN THE CONTEXT of your first passage, Jesus is avoiding the PHARISEES, who wanted to kill him, because THE PHARISEES hated Jesus because Jesus rebuked THE PHARISEES.
In the context of the time Jesus spoke that, WHO is "the world" he's speaking of? He was clearly directly speaking about the Pharisees, not everyone. He was speaking about the Pharisees' sins, not everyone's. WHO hated Jesus? The common people/common sinners? No! They loved him. The Pharisees were the ones Jesus is speaking most directly to in that quote.
Agreed?
And yes, later in that passage, it points out that there was public division about Jesus. Was he of God or not? But who was it that was leading the Anti-Jesus argument and using their power and influence to cause others to think that Jesus was not of God?
The Pharisees.
Agreed?
Again, we literally see this throughout the gospels. And just look at the first six chapters of John leading up to your out-of-context misquote... WHO had Jesus criticized harshly? ALL people? Or the Pharisees, the rich and the powerful?
And WHY were the rich and power and the Pharisees opposed to him? Because he was "breaking the rules" found in their understanding of the Bible. Because he was threatening their power in his support of the poor and marginalized.
It's all there before your eyes.
You're drawing a connection not at all supported by the text. You're simply asserted the relevant verse I presented refers to the Pharisees simply because you want it to be so. You once again ignore the fact that Christ dealt in the spiritual so that you can rationalize your obsession with the worldly. If Jesus meant the Pharisees and not "the world" as is stayed, He would have said so in a more direct manner. You fail yet again.
Sigh. You're welcome to your opinion. Clearly, in the context of the specific text and the greater thread of Jesus' story (and not just cherry picking ONE verse completely ripped out of context), Jesus was continually dealing with the Pharisees and this appears to be clearly in that same vein.
But you're welcome to your opinion.
But then, AT BEST, you have (at least in your mind) TWO ENTIRE PLACES in all the gospels where YOU think that Jesus is condemning harshly someone other than the Pharisees. And then, there are the rest of the places where Jesus is repeatedly rebuking, confronting, chastising and dressing down the Pharisees, who appear to be the antithesis of Jesus' teachings.
You finding what you think are TWO ENTIRE examples in all of Jesus' teachings only serves to confirm my point.
Answer ONE question, Marshal: Jesus said "the world" hates him because he testified that "its deeds were evil..."
In the chapters leading up to this moment, Marshal, WHO SPECIFICALLY had Jesus "testified" had "evil deeds..."? Name some of the common sinners Jesus had pointed to as having "evil deeds..."
I'll wait.
But while I'm waiting, I'll review for you the first six chapters of John.
John 1:
Deals with John the Baptist preaching in the desert (who frequently criticized the Pharisees and religious leaders and powerful rulers and, as a result, had a combative relationship with the rich and powerful - who, it should be noted, eventually killed him). We see some of his spars with the Pharisees in this chapter.
And it deals with Jesus' baptism and his calling his disciples.
John 2:
We see the "turning the water into wine" and then the clearing of the temple, where Jesus addressed those profiteering in the temple (ie, the rich and powerful, operating with the blessing/support of the Pharisees) being attacked by Jesus FOR cheating specifically against the poor (the ones who'd buy the dove offerings). In this Gospel, we see the beginning of the hostile relationship with the rich and powerful, the Pharisees. No one else.
John 3:
Jesus addressing the Pharisee, Nicodemus, who Jesus says understands nothing of the Law/God's Word. A frequent complaint against the Pharisees that they hate. It includes this verse...
"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."
And who was it who hated Jesus? Was it the regular people, where Jesus enjoyed great popularity? OR, was it the Pharisees?
The latter, not the former.
cont'd...
Chapter 4:
What's very telling, I'm noticing, is that in the overarching story, we the author laying the groundwork of a pending battle. And who is that battle between? Jesus and the Pharisees. Each chapter, so far, has had little snippets of insight into the conflict between Jesus/John the Baptist and the Pharisees. That continues in chapter 4. Having laid that groundwork, Jesus then travels away from the Pharisees into the "hated Samaritan area..." The Jews and the Samaritans had a long term hostile relationship. (Remember the Good Samaritan story? The point being that even this "awful Samaritan" - the embodiment of bad people - could recognize and be a good neighbor). In Samaria, Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman at the well, who'd had many husbands and was thus, "unclean" according to contemporary Jewish tradition.
NONETHELESS, Jesus treated her with respect, not with rebuke. NOT ONE WORD of harsh rebuke. Just an acknowledgment that she'd been married multiple times and was living with someone she was not married to. And he said that with no contempt, no rebuke.
We see many of the "hated" Samaritans embracing Jesus as Jesus embraced them, with no contempt, no rebukes. We Jesus healing a "royal official's" son. There is a slight rebuke of "you people won't believe unless you see miracles..." but not a harsh one. And, it should be noted, that this was a rebuke later of the Pharisees, who wanted to see miracles to "prove" who Jesus was. (Matt 12)
John 5:
We see the healing at the pool (of a poor, disabled man). No rebuke of him, just healing. IN RESPONSE, we see the Pharisees rebuking Jesus. Then later, when this healed man spoke with the Pharisees, we see Jesus offer the strangely out of character, "Stop sinning, or something worse will happen to you..."
The man appeared to be collaborating with the Pharisees... It leaves me wondering if this is in response to that.
So, because Jesus was breaking the commandment of working/healing on a Sunday, the Pharisees increased their "persecution" of Jesus. Trying to "kill him" the passage says. Jesus responds by saying whoever hears "his word and believes it..." will have everlasting life. WHO was it that was not believing Jesus' words? Who was that rebuke directed at, in context? The Pharisees, primarily. Much of this passage is Jesus defending himself and John the Baptist from the Pharisees attacks/persecution.
John 6:
Jesus feeds the great crowd. No rebuke given. Jesus walks on the water. The disciples are scared but no rebuke is given, just "be not afraid."
We see Jesus patiently teaching his followers without rebuke, BUT we see the Pharisees "grumbling" about Jesus and Jesus relatively gently rebukes them with a "Stop grumbling about me..." and then following that rebuke, we see some of Jesus' followers also "grumbling" about Jesus' teaching about "eating his flesh," and Jesus responded with this relatively mild rebuke...
“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
How much of this "grumbling" among his followers was about not understanding "eat his flesh" and how much was it in response to the fear of persecution from the Pharisees whom Jesus was continually in conflict with? The text does not say.
And there you have it. In the chapters leading up to this passage, Jesus rebukes no one harshly EXCEPT for the Pharisees. No mention of "evil deeds" leading up to John 7, although we see this especially in the other Gospels, where Jesus regularly condemns the evil deeds and thoughts and actions of the Pharisees, but not "regular sinners." With them, only patience and, at worst, mild rebukes.
Where am I mistaken?
What you're doing is, in certain cases, admitting He rebuked others, but refusing to count it because it was "mild". I never spoke of "mild" vs "harsh" rebuke, but only of rebuke.
Then you speak of the Samaritans. First, the story of the "Good Samaritan", which is an incredibly clear rebuke of those, ostensibly His own, people who failed to care for the mugging victim. The woman at the well He clearly rebuked for her many affairs, though again, you won't count it because He didn't rebuke her harshly. Are you really suggesting He must treat someone like her as harshly as those directly attacking Him? That's absurd! So these are examples which you've provided for me...and, thanks!...which shows He indeed rebuked...and rebukes..."ordinary" sinners.
Jesus spoke of "the world" because from the Fall, the world has been predisposed to hate God and His...and thus Christ's...Will. The Pharisees, nor the "rich and powerful" you might add to their number, hardly constitute "the world".
In one scene, we have a man save a woman's life from oppressors who chose to shame her and tried to kill her. In that scene, after saving her life, Jesus lovingly said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more..."
You are certainly welcome to see that as a "rebuke," but then, why not embrace THAT model of "rebuking," if that's what you thin it is?
In multiple other scenes, we see Jesus overtly rebuke the pharisees and rich oppressors as "white washed tombs! snakes! Blind leading the Blind!" We see Jesus literally say, "WOE to you, pharisees! HYPOCRITES that you are!" and on and on, CLEARLY rebuking them and harshly so. THAT is what I consider a rebuke... As the dictionary says, "express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions."
Now, if you think SAVING a woman's life from evil shaming oppressors then saying literally "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more..." as a "sharp criticism" I guess you're welcome to do so. I don't think that fits the definition at all, but you can interpret words as you wish.
For some more context, vocabulary.com says...
"The word rebuke can be a verb, meaning to sternly reprimand or scold, but it can also be a noun, because a rebuke is the result of being scolded. The root comes from the Old French rebuchier and means "to hack down," or "beat back." A rebuke, then, is meant to be critical and to chide — in today's terms, a rebuke is verbal smack-down!"
Jesus verbally smacked down the Pharisees and rich oppressors.
He lovingly saved and cherished and encouraged the woman "caught in adultery."
There's a heaven-to-hell difference there.
But interpret words however you want. Just explain yourself if you want to be understood by the rest of the world.
As to your commentary on the good Samaritan, the people who passed were a priest and a priest's assistant/Levite. This is in fitting with the criticism of the rulers in the temple, the Pharisees and other leadership/powerful oppressors. I don't think Jesus' listeners at the time would have missed the point. Nor should readers today.
Marshal... "Are you really suggesting He must treat someone like her as harshly as those directly attacking Him? That's absurd!"
You're missing the point. Entirely. Jesus criticized the Pharisees and rich/powerful oppressors HARSHLY because their sinful attitude was oppressive and deadly. The Path of the Pharisee was a Path to hellish-ness. "You make (your followers) twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." The pharisees were oppressors, LITERALLY trying to use God's Word to LITERALLY kill people like the woman "caught in adultery."
They missed the point.
Jesus, on being accused by the Pharisees of "violating" Sabbath laws reminded and rebuked them, "The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath." It's an upside down and backwards and oppressive way to view/treat the Scriptures, as a Magic Rule Book that the powerful can use to oppress the poor and marginalized.
The point of correcting people "caught in sin" is to lovingly help. The Pharisees (back then and the modern conservative ones) miss that point. The point of talking about sin is to beat people over the head with it, harshly rebuking "sinners" as contemptible, evil, "filth." THAT Pharisee Path is deadly, not Godly. Destruction-bringing, not life-giving.
Because of that, Jesus harshly rebuked these dangerous hypocritical zealots.
With all other people who may have lost their way, Jesus actively seeks them out and seeks to include them, to welcome them to the table and to be part of the beloved community.
That's the difference between Jesus' way and the Pharisee's way. The difference of life and death, heaven and hell, grace and destruction.
Don't read the Bible and miss the point.
Jesus was NOT responding harshly to the Pharisees because they were being "mean to him." Jesus is not an adolescent child-god, subject to striking out if he gets his feelings hurt!
Is that what you think?
No. Jesus was not just responding in kind to the Pharisees. He was responding harshly because of the danger of their sin.
Don't read the Bible and miss the point.
"In one scene, we have a man save a woman's life from oppressors who chose to shame her and tried to kill her. In that scene, after saving her life, Jesus lovingly said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more...""
And you continue to pervert the message and reality of that passage. Shame on you.
"You are certainly welcome to see that as a "rebuke," but then, why not embrace THAT model of "rebuking," if that's what you thin it is?"
It IS a rebuke, the tone of which appropriate for the occasion. He acknowledged her as the sinner she apparently was and told her to give it up. Rebuke. What makes you think I don't embrace that "model"? Again, it was appropriate for the occasion. Aside from the exchange as presented in the passage, there's no indication He was any more or less concerned for her soul than for those who used her in the attempt to trap Him. But you apparently want to believe that acknowledging her sinfulness and telling her to stop is not a rebuke of that sinfulness? If you're point is that His exchanges with the Pharisees were more forceful and intense, that's not a big deal given their attempts to cause Him harm. THEIR sins against Him personally were pretty much in His face and rather relentless. His heightened level of response was also appropriate. It doesn't matter that there are no stories of Him acting quite that severely with others, but there are instances of varied degrees of it, such as His exasperation with His disciples on one or two occasions. All rebukes. You're so hung up on the word "rebuke" so as to "win" here. But the overall point is one you've lost.
And I would like to take this moment to clarify something about "the Pharisees..." It's a point (a few points) I've made before, but would like to make again.
There is little actually known about the Pharisees.
They were not a monolithic bloc. Some Pharisees in the NT seem more oppressive and power-seeking, some more truth-seeking.
Paul was a Pharisee, for instance.
The point being that the Pharisees in the Bible are not mustache-twirling bad guys... not all the time.
No doubt, many (most?) of them had sincere motivations.
In an oppressive Roman culture, the Jewish folk had the soft threat of being assimilated and Jewish ways and perhaps even God could be forgotten about.
The Pharisees - at their best - wanted to help remind the Jewish people of God and God's ways and keep the Jewish people distinct... to save their identity.
The problem came - as we see in Jesus' repeated harsh rebukes of them - when they conflated their human traditions and opinions with God's Word (sound familiar?) and when they went so far as to oppress others and make their Way an exclusionary way, keeping out, downplaying, minimizing or otherwise oppressing women, the poor and marginalized, the sick, the foreigner.
My point being that our understanding the Pharisees should be nuanced, on the one hand, but then, recognizing that there was something about the Pharisees and their ways that caused them to violently reject Jesus and Jesus to harshly rebuke them - and it wasn't merely because they were "mean" to him!
Marshal... " If you're point is that His exchanges with the Pharisees were more forceful and intense, that's not a big deal given their attempts to cause Him harm. THEIR sins against Him personally were pretty much in His face and rather relentless. His heightened level of response was also appropriate"
You serve a childish and petty god.
Marshal... " I never spoke of "mild" vs "harsh" rebuke, but only of rebuke. "
As I've pointed out, the word Rebuke IMPLIES a harsh response. I often have referred to Jesus' "harsh rebukes" of the Pharisees, NOT because Harsh isn't implied in the word, but because so many conservatives seem to miss the point.
There are no serious instances of Jesus in the Bible giving harsh rebukes to any single sinners or group of people he's speaking to OUTSIDE of the Pharisees and other rich/powerful oppressors (the moneychangers at the temple, for instance).
It would help modern conservatives, I think, to begin to 1. Recognize it, themselves, 2. Acknowledge it, out loud and 3. Think about why that is.
Marshal: Take a day - a week - consider this, recognize this reality instead of dodging and denying it, and see if you can't acknowledge it out loud/in writing and then ponder on why that is.
It may be life-changing for you.
Your point is both insignificant and a serious, dishonest projection regarding where Christ's concern was in relation to sin. Indeed, the whole notion of who Jesus rebuked and how harshly is a twisted focus given His purpose and ministry. Gospel descriptions of Christ's heated encounters with religious leaders simply provides the explanation for how Christmas day got to Good Friday. But you seem to want to portray the direct confrontations of the religious leaders and Christ's response as some kind of indication Christ did not regard the sins of the "common sinners" with the same disdain. It's absurd, but not surprising from one so intent on defending immorality.
I would remind you that in a post on condemnation now deflected to rebuke, all sinners stand condemned already and there's no more severe rebuke than eternal punishment.
I would remind you Christ came not to condemn and thus to see little in the way of ANY harsh response to ANY sinner is totally consistent with that.
I would remind you that by your definition (not "yours" in the sense you made it up, so no need to get your diaper in a twist), "harsh" rebuke is redundant.
I would also remind you Christ rebuked sinners, not those who promote God's will as you do.
Marshal... "It's absurd..."
No. It's biblical. It's rational. It's literally biblical.
Here I am, taking the Bible and Jesus literally and you want us to ignore that in favor of your fantasies of hate. I'll take Jesus over your unwholesome and oppressive fantasies.
As with the other post, we've recognized as a nation, by and large, the thoroughly unhealthy and unbiblical and immoral imaginations of conservative Christians for what they are and we recognize you all as being irrational and emotionally fragile and in defense of oppression and against what Jesus literally stood for and it drives you even more emotionally fragile to think that people won't give in to your bullying and nonsense.
You've lost.
Marshal commented but resorted to oppressive attacks to good people he doesn't even know. One excerpt that I can quote...
" With this quote, you've just affirmed you side with the world over the Word...
Here, once again, you make the Pharisaic mistaken of conflating YOUR perverse opinions about what God thinks with what God thinks.
That I disagree with YOU, Marshal, is not at all to suggest that I disagree with the Word of God. Because of course, I don't. And the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus makes it quite clear that God, too, loves "the world" that you devalue you so much, and sides with/supports the marginalized and poor in the world, whom you try to make opposed to the Word.
I side with the oppressed world BECAUSE that is what the Word teaches.
That you hold other opinions is no indication that I disagree with the actual Word of God. That you can't even distinguish between your opinions and the Bible is part of the problem that you have, but is no reflection upon me.
Marshal also attacked progressive and LGBTQ folk as indecent type of words that I won't share here because they are the stereotypical words that conservatives and others (Muslim extremists, for instance, whom Marshal appears to share some common ground) have used to oppress LGBTQ people through the ages.
What's interesting is that I'm defending loving marriages, accepting and welcoming families, churches and communities and Marshal finds THAT "indecent" (and worse attack-words), but a man oppressing historically oppressed people, HE's a moral man, according to Marshal.
Truly an upside down world.
Marshal, I'd just ask you to think how a rational person - say an alien from another planet - who's never heard of any religious views about homosexuality would view this strange worldview of yours:
Supporting sharing, loving, caring, respectful, supporting marriage and relationships is "indecent" in your unhealthy opinion... educational books with cartoon drawings of bodies are "pornographic" in your unhealthy opinion...
Do you recognize how sick, unhealthy, harmful and just weird the particular hateful/oppressive the worldviews shared by conservative Christians and Muslim extremists would be to someone who wasn't indoctrinated to your particular set of religious traditions?
Post a Comment