There has been a fair amount of discussion about Jesus using "harsh" language directed at "the Pharisees". This has been extended to try to permit people to use "harsh language" against people they disagree with. I've been thinking about this, and have some questions that might help get a better sense of this topic.
Does Jesus have a different level of authority than the rest of humanity?
If He does, then what is it and where does it come from?
What is Jesus' motivation when using "harsh language"?
What is Jesus trying to accomplish by using "harsh language"?
Can we derive information about His motivation from what He says in context?
If this use of "harsh language" is to be emulated by His followers, why don't we see anything equivalent from the Apostles?
Do we have the same authority, motivation, and goal as Jesus did when He used "harsh language"?
Are more modern obscenities, blasphemies, vulgarities, and expletives an accurate analogue to the "harsh language" Jesus used?
When believers use "harsh language" towards each other, are we showing non believers the love and grace that Jesus spoke of?
I may add more questions as they come to me, or if anyone else has questions they think appropriate.
From a housekeeping standpoint, the only acceptable comments in this thread will be direct answers to these questions, with the question copy/pasted in the comment or additional questions that should be on the list. Any comments containing anything other than those two responses will be deleted, edited, or posted elsewhere depending on the content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
1. Different authority?
Yes.
He never says as much, but I suspect most of us who count Jesus as God would say, sure, God has a different level of authority than humans.
2. what is it and where does it come from?
If he is God, then he is beyond human and if he is an all powerful God, then of course, he has an authority beyond mere humans.
3. Jesus' motivation?
He doesn't say. Period.
My guess would be that the circumstances called for it.
If a person accidentally bumps into you at the grocery store, responding “Hey, watch out!” or even a more gracious, “whoops! No worries!” is an appropriate response.
If a person knocks a person in a wheelchair out of their wheelchair and runs off with her purse, saying “whoops! No Worries!” is an entirely WRONG response. Responding, “Hey! What's wrong with you, dipshit!” and chasing the person down is an appropriate response.
I think it's like that.
The religious Pharisees, the wealthy and powerful (for whom Jesus reserved ALL of his strongest, harshest reactions) got those harsh rebukes, I'd say, because of the level of harm they were causing and especially because they were causing the harm to the poor and oppressed.
But, as noted, he didn't tell us, so you'll have to ask him.
4. Trying to accomplish?
Rebuke in the strongest terms possible for the more dangerous aggression and for the oppression of the poor/marginalized. Why would we not use strong terms against oppressors?
5. motivation from context?
Yup, I think so. Also from the context of the ancient prophets, those who also used the harshest terms and generally for powerful oppressors and on behalf of the poor and marginalized.
6. why don't we see anything equivalent from the Apostles?
We do. Read more. Start with John the Baptist or Mary. Move on from there.
7. Do we have the same authority, motivation, and goal?
Yup. Prophets have always used strong words to rebuke oppressors and Jesus continued that human tradition (one inspired by God, I'd say), so why would we abandon it post-Jesus? We may not have fully the same authority as Jesus (of course) but we can act in the same way for that same authority.
8. Are more modern obscenities an accurate analogue?
I'd say so. Why not? The Bible never one time ever condemns the phrase “fucking oppressors.” When we're talking about OPPRESSORS, rapists, those who abuse the poor, why would we NOT use harsh terms?
9. "harsh language" love and grace?
Jesus did it. The prophets did it. The disciples did it. Why would we think it is wrong... again, when we're talking about oppression, rape, slavery, cheating the poor... harsh responses are reasonable. Why not?
When non-believers see believers strongly calling out oppressors (even and especially within the faith community), they are re-assured that the Church, writ large, isn't totally a piece of shit defender of tyranny and oppression. I hear that all the time.
“Thanks, Dan, for speaking up. Man, these type of people chased me out of church, but your type of Christian gives me hope...”
Like that.
Wow, Dan answered some questions. How refreshing.
1&2, Thank you for your equivocal answers. It's almost like you're afraid someone will see you taking a position that isn't theologically progressive or something.
3. Really? He never once gives any indication of why He did or said certain things? What is Matthew 21:13?
4. If Jesus gave us no indication of His motivation ("he doesn't say. Period"), then how can you be so adamantly sure that you know is motivation?
5. So, since you can't find any more direct context, you have to go back to a part of scripture you believe to be "myth". Why would you choose to cherry pick parts of these "myths" to take literally?
6. John the Baptist and Mary aren't apostles. So, why didn't the Apostles engage in this sort of harsh language? We don't see Peter or Paul using the kind of hate filled vitriol you espouse when they were called before their oppressors?
7. Even though you don't have the same authority, and you certainly don't meet the qualifications for an OT prophet, you'll choose to appropriate part of that authority when you find it convenient. Why not follow the example of the Apostles?
8. This is quite self serving and doesn't really do anything but answer a question with a question.
9. You really think that you will convince "non believers" to look favorably on "believers" or to become "believers" simply because you fling vitriolic, expletive filled, rants at those you consider "oppressors"? You really think that's how best to display the "love and grace" that Jesus preached? It's interesting that Peter (an Apostle) when faced with much greater oppression than we see today didn't advocate the kind of response you engage in. I wonder who is a better example to follow, Peter or Dan?
It's probably going to cause problems to point out the reality that Jesus wasn't actually addressing all of the Pharisees. We know that multiple Pharisees were actually followers of Jesus. Perhaps a bit more precision would be helpful.
Dan pretends that the "harsh language" of Christ toward the Pharisees is the same as the profane and obscene language this fake who preaches "embracing grace" uses with abandon toward us. "Harsh" does not equal profane/obscene, even though "profane/obscene" is obviously harsh. But then, Dan considers casting out the unrepentant sinner is "oppression", so it's not out of character for him, as a lefty, to redefine words and terms as it suits him and his lefty ideology.
Post a Comment