Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/7/2002 4:04 AM (GMT -6)

How was Jesus’ public rebuke of the Pharisees qualitatively different than the Pharisees’ public rebuke of “sinners”? Is it possible to generalize Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees and use it as precidence for our own public rebuke of those we perceive to be Pharisaical?

The way you answer the first question will determine the way you answer the second question.

Thanks,
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 7/7/2002 8:54 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
How was Jesus’ public rebuke of the Pharisees qualitatively different than the Pharisees’ public rebuke of “sinners”?

The sacred possition of the rebuke is what is at issue here. Both the Pharisees and Christ were set apart from those whom they rebuked. But by what right were they set apart? The Pharisees, like Christ, were making claims that could only be made by God. This creates a difference if we believe that Christ was God.

quote:
Is it possible to generalize Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees and use it as precidence for our own public rebuke of those we perceive to be Pharisaical?

No for by doing so we repeat the Pharisitical movement, we take as our right what can only belong to God. Our rebukes are based on finite perspective of righteousness. Our righteousness is a mentral rag to the Lord. Everyone is a Pharisee, it is impossible not to be a Pharisee. What Christ does is put the sinner in the place of the Pharisees. Even sinners are Pharisees. Everything is wrong, everything is sin, everything stands as a witness to our being Pharisees.

Edited by - Seymour on 07/07/2002 1:56:14 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/14/2002 5:27 AM (GMT -6)

I'd really like to see doc, Semeia and Icon respond to this. I think that it is a very valid question.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/14/2002 9:11 AM (GMT -6)

Modes,

I have a post I've been working on that responds to this. I agree with Seymour, and I found his post to be very insightful. I think it is very much in keeping with what we have been saying about Bonhoeffer's ethics and the very essence of our fallen nature.

But I'm trying to lay it out more thoughtfully, and I will post it when I'm done.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/14/2002 8:14 PM (GMT -6)

While Semeia works on her thoughtful post, I'll hastily present a thoughtless one.

Actually, I gave a rather long post on this very question in the "Rebuke a Brother" thread. But I'll give a little abbreviated version of it here. Four quick thoughts.

1. As Seymour noted, Christ has an authority none of us had. In the New Testament, Christ' love and willingness to suffer is held up as an example for disciples to follow, but never his rebuke.

2. Its interesting to contrasts Jesus' rebuke of the sin of phariseeism with his attitude toward other sinners. He had only mercy and compassion on them. Yet he torn into the pharisees. Though I think it would be unwarranted (for reasons given in #1) to conclude that we can only publically rebuke self-righteous judging leaders, I could live with it if along with it there was a rule that we HAD to show only love and compassion toward all other sinners.

3. We can perhaps understand why Jesus rebuked only the Pharisees if we observe that the Pharisees were leaders who were leading people to hell. What they were doing was damaging people, and required a "stop action."

4. We can also perhaps understand why Jesus rebuked only the Pharisees if we consider that pharisaism (how do you spell that?) is a far more grevious sin that your rank and file sin in that it has a build in defense mechanism. It is the one form of sin that gentle and compassioate approaches work least with. It is the best example of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil working well[/i[ for people. Hence, there's less hope for Pharisees than other sinners. "The prostitutes and tax collectors enter into heaven before YOU" Jesus said. (Mt 23). [I still can't believe he actually SAID THAT!].

SO, I think Jesus was doing an appropriate thing for GOD to do in confronting the Pharisee, and I think this is VERY different from what the Pharisees (or anyone else) are doing when they judge other sinners.

Outrageous mercy

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/15/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, this response is posted on a different thread, but I’d really appreciate it if you would respond to it here. Thanks.

Electra: Good point, Brandi. The Pharisees were not in Jesus’ "small group," but that didn’t stop him from harshly rebuking them.

Doc: True, but I’d be cautious about using this as a justification to confront anybody you think is a sinner.

Electra: My intention was not to use this as a justification to confront anyone—my intention was rather to question the context of a small group relationship as a criteria for deciding who qualifies for confrontation. I think that establishing criteria for confrontation is still living out of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.

Doc:
a) religious sinners (people sinning with their religion) who were leaders were the ONLY group Jesus confronted like this. To the run-of-the-mill sinners he had compassion, never calling out their sin publically.

Electra: So how do we know which sinners are exceptional and therefore should be confronted and which sinners are just “run-of-the-mill” and therefore should receive compassion? Jesus obviously made this distinction, but how did he do it without operating out of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Doc:
b) I would argue that religious sin requires a STOP ACTION (Icon’s term) that few other sins require. The Pharisee has built in defense mechanisms to keep him in bondage. The knowledge of good and evil IS WORKING WELL for them. This is why Jesus saw religious sinners as FARTHER from the kingdom of God that "prostitutes and tax collectors"

Electra: I must admit that I’m suspicious of your criteria for singling out certain sins as worthy of “STOP ACTION”—especially sins that you don’t seem to struggle with, but your harshest critics do. It seems self-serving. I agree that Jesus accused the Pharisees of being farther from the kingdom of God than “prostitutes and tax collectors”—but how did he do this without eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Doc:
c) Leaders more often require a public confrontation than others, for their sin is public. Jesus was trying to protect the crowds in his public confrontation.

Electra: So in your system, you would say that sins that negatively affect the most people require public confrontation? This sounds like an ethical rationale—another criteria for deciding which sins rank higher than others.

Doc:
d) Jesus was the Son of God and had more authority than any of us.

Electra: Agreed.

Doc:
e) If we feel compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners – where shall we start? Who will devise the top 50 sin list? And, if we are honest, how shall we ever get out our own front door, for we shall rebuking the mirror for a long while.

Electra: I think if we were compelled to apply Jesus’ example in confronting sinners, we would follow the Spirit’s leading. This might mean confronting someone within our small group, or a perfect stranger on the street. It might mean confronting a religious leader whose sin has damaged hundreds of followers, or a porn addict whose secret sin only damages only a few people. How would we know who needs to be confronted and who needs compassion? We are blinded by our own sin, and even if we were perfect (i.e. Jesus) we would still need to trust the Spirit. Only God knows human hearts.

Doc:
f) Has confronting people in general the way Jesus confronting the pharisees ever produced one good thing? I know of TWO cases of religious leaders who had many people following them who had to be publicly confronted and exposed – and for whom it was a GOOD THING. This is a proper application of Jesus’ message. But I can’t for the life of me recall ever hearing of a time when a stranger confronted another stranger about a sin that did anything more than look very pompous, ugly, shaming, and worsened whatever problem the person was trying to fix.

Electra: I guess my gut reaction to your opinion about people you’ve known who’ve confronted strangers is that those people probably weren’t acting in obedience to the Spirit. But how can I even say that much? After all, the prophets were obedient to the Spirit and they were very unpopular—many were stoned. Jesus himself was crucified. If a stranger confronted me about my sin, I would be tempted to judge them as pompous, ugly, shaming, self-righteous religious sinners. I might even be right, who knows? After all, God has been known to use asses to confront people (e.g. Balaam). But I would seriously consider the possibility that the Spirit led them to do so.

Doc:
f) If we were to do this, how would we do so in a way that doesn't constitute a gross violation of Matt 7:1-5?

Electra: We would do so in obedience to the Spirit rather than out of our own knowledge of good and evil.

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/15/2002 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

On Jesus’ authority:

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
    who, though he was in the form of God,
        did not regard equality with God
        as something to be exploited,
    but emptied himself,
        taking the form of a slave,
        being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,
        he humbled himself
        and became obedient to the point of death—
        even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5–8)

As God incarnate, Jesus Christ had infinitely more authority than any human being. However, when Christ became human, he emptied himself of equality with God. The only basis for making a qualitative distinction between Jesus’ rebuke and Pharisees’ rebuke is that Jesus EMPTIED himself of authority rather than EXPLOITING it, and instead acted out of perfect obedience to the Father.

“Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12).

What was the greatest work Jesus Christ did? The reason Christ came to this world, and the reason the world crucifed him, was that he FORGAVE SINS. This was a direct assault to the world’s system based on the knowledge of good and evil. The forgiveness of sins frees people to love others unconditionally, as opposed to loving others based on conditions established by knowledge of good and evil (e.g. only love those who deserve to be loved, love people according to their good or evil actions, etc.).

Jesus passed the authority to forgive sins on to his followers. Proclaiming the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name is the good news. The forgiveness of sins is the “key to the kingdom” because it unleashes radical, unconditional, reckless love on the world.

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual