|
Post by mist on Feb 13, 2009 21:05:00 GMT -8
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
I don't understand how Jesus can have been tempted? Since he was God, wouldn't it have been easy for him to resist temptations?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 13, 2009 21:09:26 GMT -8
So, as to the question of whether Jesus, being morally perfect, can really truly relate to our temptations/ testings, C.S. Lewis has two very different but complimentary answers. I'll post both, but I find the second one most helpful in thinking about this.
We might ask ourselves how it could have been hard for Jesus, being God, to resist temptation. After all, doesn't it seem like it would have been "easy" for him to do so? Here's the first response from Lewis which is basically a reminder not to look a gift horse in the mouth:
But supposing God became a man - suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person - then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and he cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.
I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to for the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, its not fair!" You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage--call it "unfair" if you like--is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
But if that doesn't quite satisfy you, I really like his thinking here:
“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness — they have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means — the only complete realist.”
-- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
Wow. This is how Christ knows temptation better than any of us can even claim to.
Here's another helpful quote along these lines:
"Both because Jesus had taken on our fallen condition and thus was vulnerable to the attacks of Satan and because he was filled with the Spirit and thus had clarity and holiness far exceeding our own, temptation confronted him with a sharpness and force we do not experience. Our minds and hearts are anesthetized and dulled by our concupiscence and personal sin. Moreover, because we almost inevitably conspire with the temptation to some degree, teasing it on, we never feel its full impact. Jesus, however, with complete clarity and perception, experienced both the entire allurement of temptation and, because he never conspired with it, endured the undivided assault of Satan’s attack."
--Thomas G. Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1993), 99.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 14, 2009 3:26:13 GMT -8
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. I don't understand how Jesus can have been tempted? Since he was God, wouldn't it have been easy for him to resist temptations? Jesus wasn't perfect and he wasn't without sin. This follows simply cause he was human. Him being human means him being born already as a sinner (carrying the burdens of the original sin). Where there is humaness involved, there are flaws involved. His imperfection can be seen in his struggles and doubts, but also in his aggression: John 2:14-16 "And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables." I wouldn't expect such a behavior from a perfect being, least of all from a man who preaches to love even enemies (see for instance Matthew 5:38-45). Sidenote: it didn't escape my attention, that a supposed guest posted a question at 9:05 pm and only four minutes later at 9:09 pm Josh comes along with a full grown reply that would have taken anyone quite a while. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 14, 2009 9:43:23 GMT -8
You caught me Mo. Except it was a question emailed to me, related to our current study, by someone that doesn't have an account. I'll be back when I have a minute, but you seem to have some confusion over the Christian definition of sin.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 14, 2009 11:45:26 GMT -8
There's a difference between sins and weaknesses/ limitations. Jesus wasn't born as a sinner because he was born of the Holy Spirit. He was, however, born with human weaknesses and limitations. Here are some thoughts from Richard V. Vincent [1] on the subject: For some people, it is Jesus’ sinlessness that poses problems for their identification with him. If Jesus were truly sinless, how can we relate to him? Doesn’t his sinlessness undermine his full humanity? Isn’t it true that “to err is human”? How then can we relate to Jesus? How can we view him as a model to follow?
This problem arises from a misunderstanding the nature of sin and the nature of humanity. First, in regard to sin: We often assume some actions qualify as sin which, upon further reflection, are not truly sinful actions. For example, mistakes, human limitations and human ignorance do not qualify as sin. There is nothing sinful about making a mistake. Calculating that 2 + 2 = 5 is not a sin, but a human error, a mistake, a miscalculation. One can make this error without turning away from God or rebelling against God’s will. The same applies to our inherent human limitations and ignorance. Jesus experienced all of these things. The scriptures are clear: He learned and grew in knowledge and wisdom (see Luke 2:40, 52) – all aspects of authentic human development.
So, let’s be clear on this point: mistakes, ignorance, and limitations are not sinful, but essential aspects of authentic human experience.
However, sin is not an essential aspect of human experience. On the contrary, sin is a stain on humanity. It is a defect, a parasite. Sin, at its core, is dehumanizing and debilitating. It detracts from our full potential. It undermines full human experience. It splinters, fragments, and devastates our lives.
Jesus’ sinlessness points to the absence of sin in his life. It describes a lack of something, namely, sin. The positive side of this is that Jesus was full of integrity. He was not splintered, fragmented, or divided in his humanity. He was full and complete in God. This did not exempt him from great trials, suffering, and difficulties, but it did guarantee that his way of encountering such things evidenced conformity to God’s will.
What makes Jesus sinless is that he never willfully rebelled against God. His life was constantly turned toward God. He experienced a deep and unique relationship with God that shaped his entire life. (One of the reasons his experience of God’s abandonment on the cross – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – was so devastating to him was that it was his first experience of separation from God.)
Far from being a detriment to full human experience, Jesus’ sinlessness evidenced his uniqueness among humankind.
In all other human beings there is a chasm, a fault, a final incoherence between who they are, what they say, and what they do. They make but do not keep their promises. They “break their word.” They promise faithfulness to God and to their neighbors, but not a single one avoids idolatry or keeps faith with his or her neighbor. Everyone succumbs in some fashion to hatred, theft, lies, and envy. There is in every human life this incoherence, this chaos, the Bible names as sin – this loss of life before God and neighbor.[2] In other words, contrary to even the best among us, everything Jesus said was true, evidence of his absolute union with God. Likewise, everything Jesus did was true to his word. He was never guilty of hypocrisy or deception. Amazingly, everything he taught, he lived. Because of this, he stands as a perfect model of human union with God. He represents what it means to be fully human, alive to God. Stroup continues, “Jesus is so fully turned toward God and neighbor that there are no shadows in his life, no contradictions between what he says and does, and in this sense, unlike Adam, he lives wholly in the light and not in the shadows and is himself ‘the light of the world.’”[3]
Jesus’ sinlessness “does not detract from his true humanity. It is, on the contrary, what makes him the true human being, for sin is not part of human nature but a violation of human nature.”[4] Mo wrote: It is not a sin to be angry: In your anger do not sin... Psalm 4:4, Ephesians 4:26 In fact, it can even be righteous. God is often spoken of as angry in the Scriptures. Jesus' anger toward the money changers was righteous anger and fulfilled Scripture: John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."Haven't you ever experienced righteous anger over injustice? I hope so! I for one don't want a God who is indifferent to injustice and suffering. God's anger doesn't contradict his love or his compassion. Even humans are able to experience both toward the same person simultaneously. [1] Richard J. Vincent Theocentric Website [2] George W. Stroup, Before God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 67. [3] Stroup, Before God, 69. [4] John Macquarrie, Christology Revisited (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 42.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 15, 2009 14:43:48 GMT -8
I for one don't want a God who is indifferent to injustice and suffering. Josh, you’re killing me with your incoherent conclusions So the only alternative to whipping is indifference? You’re kidding, right? Of course I’ve been angry over injustice. As a matter of fact injustice is what is causing me the most anger. However, I have often seen people solving unjust situations decidedly yet in a calm and confident way. That’s what I respect and admire. Such behaviour is close to perfection. Contrary to this, Jesus behaviour in the temple was the exposure of typical human imperfection. Furthermore it stands very much in conflict with his teachings of the sermon on the mount. When Richard V. Vincent writes “Likewise, everything Jesus did was true to his word. He was never guilty of hypocrisy or deception. Amazingly, everything he taught, he lived.”, I can only shake my head. Did the man even read the Bible? One more thing has to be cleared. I never said that Jesus anger or aggression was a sin. I opposed two separate assertions: 1. Jesus was without sin, 2. Jesus was perfect. My explanations about anger were about the latter. I think we can agree about this, since you yourself as well as Vincent spoke of Jesus’ weaknesses and limitations. Jesus wasn’t perfect. As far as the former assertion is concerned, I argued that Jesus wasn’t without sin because of the original sin. You disagreed by saying: “Jesus wasn't born as a sinner because he was born of the Holy Spirit”. To this I can only reply that the last time I checked, the Bible told me he was born by a woman...!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2009 17:37:29 GMT -8
mo wrote:
Who's standard of perfection? Yours or an absolute standard we should all agree on?
No, I do not see Jesus' anger or aggression as either sin or imperfection. Even God the Father is said to experience anger, sorrow, etc..
Jesus wasn't 'perfect' in the sense that he had physical limitations, but I don't see posessing emotions or acting righteously in response to them as imperfections in the least.
The Bible teaches that indeed Jesus (the Messiah) was without sin: 1 Peter 2:22, Hebrews 4:15, Isaiah 53:9. That is, he shared in our humanity but not our sinful nature.
Some theologians argue that because he did not have a human father, he did not inherit this nature. Others argue that God simply brought him into the world in the womb of Mary untainted by the fall of man.
Still, he was fully human, just as Adam before the Fall.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 17, 2009 16:10:13 GMT -8
OK, Mo, on to the apparent contradiction between Christ's words and actions:
Matthew 5:38-40 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
John 2:14-16 "And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables."
Does Jesus' casting out of the moneychangers illustrate a contradiction with Jesus' own ethical teaching?
I agree that there is an apparent contradiction. How might these two passages be reconciled?
I've got some thoughts but no time just now. Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 18, 2009 2:20:34 GMT -8
mo wrote: Who's standard of perfection? Yours or an absolute standard we should all agree on? I don’t think my definition of perfection as flawlessness differs much from the general definition of that word. The reason why I believe that calm and confident action against injustice and evil is the perfect remedy is much based on experience. Subjective as this might be, you are not going to tell me that you really disagree when you look inside your heart. I’m wondering: are you opposing me in this particular issue because you frankly disagree or because you feel like agreeing with me would harm your position in our discourse? I mean, let’s look at this again: In the part we are discussing of the sermon on the mount, Jesus gives us clear and radical (in a good way) instructions: He says: “Do not resist evil” (or an evil person, but I think we can generalize here), and goes on to say how the right resistance looks like: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” Jesus knows that aggression leads to counter aggression, violence to counter violence. The impressive thing here is that he wants his followers to break that vicious circle by returning something good for something evil. He instructs them not to commit evil as a means for a just end (the satisfaction of justice). To be physically attacked naturally causes a lot of aggression. Who of us wouldn’t understand if somebody who is being attacked strikes back? After all, self-defense is legal from the juridical perspective. If you have ever been stroke in the face, you might know the feeling this causes. It makes very angry. It hurts, both physically and mentally. To ask somebody to turn the other cheek is almost asking too much. Yet this is precisely and explicitly what Jesus demands: don’t step back, don’t give in, keep on standing in the way of evil, but instead of condescending to evil by returning an evil for an evil (an eye for an eye, a concept Jesus dismisses in the very passage) turn the other cheek! That’s what I call perfect behaviour and it should be hard for you to shoot my opinion into the subjective Mo-corner, since it is your own, supposedly perfect messiah giving this direction. To be righteously angry isn’t a sin. I agree. Neither is the experience of such a feeling a flaw. But this doesn’t mean that one may go berserk, as long as the cause is just. What you are actually defending is a physical outburst of fury. Let’s imagine I came to your (or any) church and because you (or anyone) were doing something I subjectively (yet justly) condemned, I would start whipping at you and drive you out of the church and go on the rampage overturning the tables of the old ladies selling third world products… What would you do? Exactly, you would call the cops and I would be rightly arrested. It wouldn’t matter whether my cause was just. This is simply no way to behave and you know it. And Jesus knew it too. That’s why he instructed everyone to behave exactly opposite. That’s the point. Unfortunately, he couldn’t live up to his own preaching. I don’t blame him. I really don’t. None of us has ever been able to practice exactly what we preach. This lays in being human. And Jesus was one of us. He may still be one of the best or even the best role model existing (that would be another debate). But it’s not only wrong but also unfair to say he was perfect. He wasn’t. No human ever was.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 18, 2009 3:13:37 GMT -8
Josh, make sure not to miss my previous post. The Bible teaches that indeed Jesus (the Messiah) was without sin: 1 Peter 2:22, Hebrews 4:15, Isaiah 53:9. That is, he shared in our humanity but not our sinful nature. A couple of different thoughts here: Let’s start with the oldest source. I’ve been checking three different translations of Isaiah 53:9 and none of them said Jesus was without sin: He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. It is being said that he neither commited violence nor deceit. Those two don’t cover the entire range of sin. Furthermore it has to be pointed out, that it isn’t clear whether Isaiah even talked about Jesus. I know some Jews who might disagree The passages saying that Jesus was indeed without sin are of the New Testament and have been produced some decades after Jesus death. Peter clearly refers to Isaiah, which was necessary to point out that Jesus was the one the prophesy was talking about, adding the bit about the sinlessness. The authorship of Hebrews is apparently anonymous*, hence we can’t say much about the worth of it. You said the authorship of Peter is being debated too, so there has to be put a question mark here too. Either way, even if Peter and Paul were the authors, it is still questionable whether everything they said was literally true. I would argue that whether or not Jesus was without sin is something they can’t know. a) Peter didn’t know Jesus his entire life (and hence can’t know what Jesus did before they met), and he surely wasn’t around Jesus all the time. b) Paul didn’t get to meet Jesus at all. c) Neither Peter nor Paul could look inside Jesus head and heart (where sin can also occur as we know). => They can’t know it.** * Wikipedia: The Epistle to the Hebrews (abbr. Heb for citations) is one of the books in the New Testament. Though traditionally credited to the Apostle Paul, the letter is anonymous. Most modern scholars, both conservative and critical, believe its author was not Paul. More on the authorship of Hebrews: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Hebrews#Authorship**There would also be the side question of the translation and whether sin was really the term they used. I assume they did. Some theologians argue that because he did not have a human father, he did not inherit this nature. Some Biologist might reply that since he had a human mother, he must have inherited some of her sinful nature. Or is sin an exclusively male trait? Others argue that God simply brought him into the world in the womb of Mary untainted by the fall of man. THEN I don’t understand why God even bothered to have Jesus born at all. In the case you presented Jesus neither has a biological human father nor mother. There was no DNA of Mary or of any other human in him. So why didn’t God create Jesus the same way he created Adam? It frankly makes no sense to me. You presented two different theological views. What do you believe?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2009 10:59:36 GMT -8
A bit more Scriptural support for the sinlessness of Jesus:
I'm ripping this off from wikipedia in the interest of time, with a following point that is relevant for this discussion:
The Bible is quite clear on the sinlessness of Jesus. In Hebrews we read that Jesus "has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). He is also described as "a high priest [who] meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26) and is "unblemished" (Hebrews 9:14). Even Peter, who knew Jesus well, declared that he "committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). The apostle John tells us that "In him is no sin" (1 John 3:5) and Paul confirms for us that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Even Jesus himself asked those around him, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46).
[edit] Objections One problem arises from a study of the sinlessness of Jesus. Some have asked, "If Jesus never sinned, was he truly human?" Wayne Grudem writes:
"The key to understanding the duality of Christ's human nature and His sinlessness is understanding that sin, as part of the human condition, is not the normal condition. God did not create us as sinners, but as a result of the fall, sin has marred our lives. Christ's sinlessness is made clear in Scripture, from His 40 days in the desert, where Satan tempted Christ but failed to entice him in to sin, to the time of the beginning of His ministry where "the favor of God was upon Him" (Luke 2:40)." - Systematic Theology, Chapter 26
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 18, 2009 21:11:25 GMT -8
Moritz wrote: I don’t mean to butt in here (but I will anyways ). A few points I’d like to make: 1. Was the whips for the people? Or the animals to get them to skee-daddle as far away as possible? One may be just as likely as the other, but I'd guess the latter given Jesus' revealed character. 2. I believe the analogy we get from scripture wouldn’t resemble your church analogy at all. A church building is privately owned by the corporation that has purchased it. You’re right to say that none of us would have a right to do that. Note that Jesus never cleared a synagogue (which would more closely parallel a modern day church) this way, but the temple (which was considered the house of God). I think a better analogy would be something more like this: Let’s say your father left his house in the care of certain stewards who were entrusted to care for and nurture his children (your brothers and sisters) while He’s gone (for the sake of argument, let’s not get hung up on the omnipresence thing). When you come around to check on things for him, you find the stewards have turned into crack heads and are taking advantage of the children (your own brothers and sisters) in the most vile ways imaginable, in your father’s own house. Jesus himself said it this way. Matt 21:13 13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.'" NKJV There’s a major difference in defending one’s self (which Jesus never did, nor the apostles after the resurrection), and defending others. One is an act of self-preservation and the other a selfless act of love. Also, there is honor in defending the name of another as well. Jesus both defended the innocent and His father’s good name in this act and therefore it was a righteous act IMO. He didn’t contradict Himself at all. Incidentally, God’s house that Jesus mentions here was so defiled and polluted by this idolatry, God finally moved out and left it to the murderous crack heads. Matt 23:37-39 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; NKJV Just my opinion. (worth the price charged)
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 19, 2009 3:09:59 GMT -8
Moritz wrote: I don’t mean to butt in here (but I will anyways ). A few points I’d like to make: Comme d’habitude Hi Chris! 1. Was the whips for the people? Or the animals to get them to skee-daddle as far away as possible? One may be just as likely as the other, but I'd guess the latter given Jesus' revealed character. This is a clear distortion imo. You’re not really saying that the merchants (or murderous crack heads) were standing and watching while Jesus was whipping their cattle out of the Temple and overturning their tables, are you? The Bible is pretty explicit what Jesus did with that whip: He drove them all out, both humans and animals. Then again I’m so used to Christians bending scripture till it suits them, that I’m not really surprised. I think a better analogy would be something more like this: Let’s say your father left his house in the care of certain stewards who were entrusted to care for and nurture his children (your brothers and sisters) while He’s gone (for the sake of argument, let’s not get hung up on the omnipresence thing). When you come around to check on things for him, you find the stewards have turned into crack heads and are taking advantage of the children (your own brothers and sisters) in the most vile ways imaginable, in your father’s own house. Jesus himself said it this way. Hold on a second: You can’t say "Jesus himself said it this way". Matthew (and possibly other evangelists) said that Jesus said it this way. There’s a decisive difference in that. I don't know why I suddenly come up with this. I know, it’s easier to say “Jesus” said instead of “XY said Jesus said”, and I myself keep saying it. But it's actually wrong. In the particular case we are discussing it doesn’t really make a difference, but it has to be pointed out anyway to raise awareness. Don't regard this as directed at you, but at all of us, me included. Anyway, thank you for your analogy. I think I can hear you. A couple of thoughts here: First a question of comprehension: What do you mean by “taking advantage of the children (your own brothers and sisters) in the most vile ways imaginable”? I don’t know what that means, for taking advantage is a blurry term. If you say “in the most vile ways imaginable”, I would have to imagine that those Stewarts are raping my sisters collectively and flogging my brothers to death. Is that what you wanted to say? I would kill the stewards! But a) I’m not Jesus and b) I have a feeling your analogy exaggerated the circumstances….slightly (or my imagination is just viler than yours). But before you now defend your analogy and point out that you didn’t mean it the way I interpreted it, let me do this for you, because I think you do have a point. So let’s say my father entrusted his house to some stewards and when I go to the house I find them throwing a wild party, selling dope and amusing themselves with hookers and having turned my fathers place into a big casino. Can we put it that way? Do I have a reason to be angry? Hell yeah! Did Jesus have a reason to be angry? Yes. Does he have a right to throw them all out? Most definitely, yes. But this was never the point. The point is HOW! According to the gospel Jesus radically teaches us how to deal with evildoers. There’s no getting around that. Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek. We are so used to our legal right to defending ourselves and others (this doesn’t make a difference in this case) even with violent means, that it is almost too tempting to overlook his explicitly non-violent orders. Jesus says turn the other cheek. He doesn’t say stand idly by, don’t do anything. He says get in the way and don’t step back. But don’t fight evil with evil. Fight evil with goodness. And That’s the point. He is very clear about it and his behaviour at the temple doesn’t match his own standards at all. He contradicted himself thoroughly. Again I don’t want to make it appear as if I was blaming Jesus. I can totally relate. As a matter of fact I’m the very last person to cast a stone here, for I’m a hothead myself. What is bothering me is this half-baked talk of Jesus being perfect, and this deliberate ignorance of biblical contradiction, often combined with deliberate distortion. I personally think the case at hand is so crystal clear that the fact you guys keep defending it appears very odd to me. Again, is it because you guys feel like you have to defend Jesus from my atheist attacks on principle? Or are there troubling theological implications I’m unaware of at the moment? The option that you really believe Jesus behaviour at the temple was perfect and in best accordance with his own teachings, seems impossible to me. Perhaps there are other options I haven’t thought of. But something smells very fishy here. Josh, if you happen to be reading this: I'm awaiting your reply to my previous posts. I want to stay focussed on our dialogue (no offense, Chris!).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2009 11:13:06 GMT -8
Yep, I'm cooking one up but I 'm not sure when I'll have time. We're going away for the weekend!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 19, 2009 21:52:38 GMT -8
Ah c'mon Mo, where's your imagination? No, I'm imagining they were probably chasing their oxen. Is it? Let's look at the verse in question (assuming you mean John's version). John 2:15-1615 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"NKJV
Where does it saying Jesus whipped anyone? You have to assume that, no? The truth is, the text doesn't say what Jesus did with the whip. You can call it a distortion if you wish, but I think you'll have to concede here that it's not "explicit". you wrote: Technically, you're correct. But this is merely semantics in the eyes of someone who holds the scripture as inspired. As far as most Christians are concerned, Jesus said the things the gospel writers said He did (or at least a very close likeness to it). But neither of those things are my main point. you wrote: I meant pretty much what you described (actually, I was thinking forced prostitution, but your imagination is pretty vile too ;D ) You see, to God, injustice, in all forms, is a heinous crime. Jesus (er, um Luke) even said: Luke 17:1-317:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 So watch yourselves. NIV (this NIV's for you Josh )
Imagine your a devout Jew who loves God, required to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year to keep the feasts of the law. Rather than schlepping your sacrificial animals clear across the desert and over the mountains, you choose the option to buy them in Jerusalem so you can travel light. When you get there, your foreign currency doesn't work so you have to exchange. You not only find the exchange rate at the temple to be robbery, but you also find you have to dicker with the animal merchants who want to charge you a bull's price for a pair of doves. By the end of it, you're not really thinking about God at all and the experience isn't much different than going to the market. You and God are both robbed of the spiritual connection the temple was intended to invite. To God, this is grievous. This is the religious leaders using God's house for profit and hindering true worship. Jesus (er, um, Matthew) said: Matt 23:13 13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. NKJV (Not this time Josh )you wrote: I disagree with you here. Look at what He said from your example: Matt 5:38-42 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. NKJV When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he's clearly talking about yielding to personal assault, not about defending others. Jesus often stood up for others (John 8, Matt 12). you wrote: It shouldn't be odd at all. There's nothing half-baked about it. This is something bible is explicit on. Jesus was perfectly sinless (Heb 4:15, 2Cor 6:21). Of course there's a theological implication. If Jesus was not sinless, He couldn't be the lamb "without spot or blemish" to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. Now having said all that, I actually think Jesus' actions here have a double purpose and were in part calculated to convey a message about His true purpose for coming (kind of like an acted out parable). Namely, to violently (spiritually speaking) expunge evil from the world and usher in the Kingdom of God (but that's a whole other discussion in itself). you wrote: None taken. Feel free to ignore my post and continue on with your conversation with Josh. Peace to you.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2009 22:27:12 GMT -8
Chris wrote:
I agree that this was a calculated symbolic action of Jesus in fulfillment of Psalm 69:8-9
8 I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons;
9 for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.
and Malachi 3:1-4
1 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2009 22:47:01 GMT -8
I do believe that it is often the best remedy for us, but not always. There are situations in which interventive force needs to be used. In fact, in Scripture God is often spoken of as bringing righteous, violent judgment. Daniel 9:11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. "Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you.Jesus himself says that He will one day physically intervene to judge the nations (Matthew 25). Or, how about this image of Jesus from Revelation? Revelation 19:11-21 11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. 17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.Mo wrote: I don't see Jesus' action in the Temple or in the final judgment as "berserk". But it is furious. And I don't think there is anything intrinsically evil about fury. Mo, this is important: in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus isn't saying that "an eye for an eye" or even violence is inherently evil. He can't say that of course, because He knew that God himself had authorized violence in certain cases. Jesus never decried the warrior heroes of the old testament, like David, as evil for the warfare they engaged in. What Jesus was doing was saying was that there's fairness and justice (which sometimes involves force) and then, for the followers of Christ, a higher way of self-sacrifice that can transform the world in a way that mere justice and fairness never could. But Jesus didn't mean that violence was necessarily inherently evil or that it wasn't still God's perogative to use force when He deems it necessary. And He doesn't speak in the Sermon on the Mount about what we should do when someone else is in danger. He also doesn't seem to be giving overt instructions on how governments should act, either, I'd argue.
|
|