Would Jesus Have Insulted Anyone?
One thing's for sure, Jesus didn't pull any punches
St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse and I have had a bit of a running combox discussion. Now Jimbob and I don't always agree on everything, but JB's a straight shooter... and I respect that.
Anyhow, he and I were discussing (in a roundabout way) if Jesus would have ever insulted anyone. Like Jimbob correctly pointed out, Christ never referred to the adulterous woman as a 'whore'.
But that got me to thinking about some of the things Jesus said...
Lk 11: 39-40. Jesus refers to the Pharisees as 'fools'. Going to the Latin Vulgate Bible, the word "fools" is "stulti", and stulti can translate into either fools or morons, depending upon the context in which it was said. Either way, fool or moron is pretty darn insulting.
Mt 26: 24 - "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born". OK, Jesus could have simply said to judas "betraying Me isn't exactly a good thing", but Jesus went as far as to say that it would have been better if judas wasn't even born! Imagine if someone said that to you. I'd take that as an insult... wouldn't you?
In both of the Gospels of Saints Matthew and Mark, Jesus refers to St. Peter as "satan". Christ could have easily said to St. Peter to knock it off... but instead, He referred to St. Peter as the epitome of evil. Pretty darn harsh if you ask me. Insulting, even?
In The Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, we have Jesus saying "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them". Keep in context the Jewish (and Middle Eastern) outlook when referring to someone being on the same level as your feet. And if placing the unbeliever at the same level as your feet wasn't harsh enough, Jesus goes one step further with the exhortation to 'shake the DUST of where they live off your feet'! I think that qualifies as a first class slam.
Mt 7; 6 "...neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Again, remember what the Jewish attitude was (and still is) towards pigs. Describing someone who willingly disregards the Truth about Jesus as a pig? Now THAT was an insult to the Nth degree!
No doubt, to get someone's attention most rikki-tik, Jesus wouldn't hesitate to give a good, solid verbal punch in the nose every now and then.
One thing's for sure, Jesus didn't pull any punches
St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse and I have had a bit of a running combox discussion. Now Jimbob and I don't always agree on everything, but JB's a straight shooter... and I respect that.
Anyhow, he and I were discussing (in a roundabout way) if Jesus would have ever insulted anyone. Like Jimbob correctly pointed out, Christ never referred to the adulterous woman as a 'whore'.
But that got me to thinking about some of the things Jesus said...
Lk 11: 39-40. Jesus refers to the Pharisees as 'fools'. Going to the Latin Vulgate Bible, the word "fools" is "stulti", and stulti can translate into either fools or morons, depending upon the context in which it was said. Either way, fool or moron is pretty darn insulting.
Mt 26: 24 - "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born". OK, Jesus could have simply said to judas "betraying Me isn't exactly a good thing", but Jesus went as far as to say that it would have been better if judas wasn't even born! Imagine if someone said that to you. I'd take that as an insult... wouldn't you?
In both of the Gospels of Saints Matthew and Mark, Jesus refers to St. Peter as "satan". Christ could have easily said to St. Peter to knock it off... but instead, He referred to St. Peter as the epitome of evil. Pretty darn harsh if you ask me. Insulting, even?
In The Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, we have Jesus saying "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them". Keep in context the Jewish (and Middle Eastern) outlook when referring to someone being on the same level as your feet. And if placing the unbeliever at the same level as your feet wasn't harsh enough, Jesus goes one step further with the exhortation to 'shake the DUST of where they live off your feet'! I think that qualifies as a first class slam.
Mt 7; 6 "...neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Again, remember what the Jewish attitude was (and still is) towards pigs. Describing someone who willingly disregards the Truth about Jesus as a pig? Now THAT was an insult to the Nth degree!
No doubt, to get someone's attention most rikki-tik, Jesus wouldn't hesitate to give a good, solid verbal punch in the nose every now and then.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
4:33 PM
5 Comments:
What about John 8:44? You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Doesn't get much worse than being called a child of the devil.
Matt 3:7 And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?
Christ didn't mince words, that's for sure. Though I think it's important to note that He didn't have a beam in His eye to contend with either. Nevertheless, words have meaning and we should call evil, evil and a murderer a murderer, etc.
And let's not forget the ass-kicking laid on the moneychangers and merchants who were befouling the temple. Fashioning a whip and applying it with abandon can hardly be considered polite, now can it? I'd say the Lord showed His ability to correct error both verbally AND physically.
That was my point about choosing targets, Rick, Jesus laid into the self-righteous more heavily than the average publican or prostitute. Jesus had to shock those who professed that they were doing God's will, while not doing it at all.
Sure, the pharisees prayed the words that tradition told them to, wore the clothing the way tradition dictated, ate the foods of tradition. They even assumed traditionally correct postures during prayer (nudge-nudge). But they did not love God, and neither did they love God's children.
Many sinners have a hard time with their own identity in relation to their sins. If we, in a spirit of derision, reinforce a sinner's seeming inseperability from their sins, how does that help? Resurrection leaves the body of sin behind, and it is this resurrection we should be encouraging our falled and confused siblings to seek. "Pole-smoking butt pirate" doesn't proclaim the Gospel.
"Mulleted Diesel Dyke" doesn't announce Jesus' victory over sin. We can proclaim the Truth without resorting to tawdry name-calling.
"Hey, Zacceus, you double-dealing runt, come on outta that tree." It just doesn't sound right..
" My friend, your sexual appetites offend God and will land you in Hell, unless you repent. God does love you, and can provide the grace to control your unnatural desires. Trust in Jesus, and follow after Him that took up the Cross for you.."
"Pole-smoking butt pirate" very well may not proclaim the Gospel, but it is an accurate description.
And the points you made concerning the pharisees keeping with tradition, but failing to love God were right on target. Just the other side of the coin... there's a word for those that deny Tradition. They're called Protestants (nudge-nudge).
The coin analogy is apt, for each side of the coin thinks it is the only side.
The Church dispensed with a lot of Jewish tradition, but kept the few parts most needed for some faithful continuity. The tassels are gone of our raimant, we don't hve prayer shawls, circumcision is optional, and pork ribs are back on the menu.
We kept the words of the prophets and patriarchs, as they are the promise of Christ to ancient Israel, and we kept the Decalogue, which is still a reminder of what God expects from us. Otherwise, 'Love thy Neighbor' and 'Love try Neighbor's Wife' would not be so clear.
We kept the doctrine, the heart of Tradition, not the external trappings. When Protestants ditched core doctrines, they also ditched the traditions as well. Why kneel in front of something that you believe as a symbol? The abandonment of tradition was just a symptom of ditching doctine.
Many Catholics do the same; they dispose of inconvenient doctrine, and then proceed to ditch the traditions. Some traditions they keep, and they may outwardly resemble members of the Catholic Church, but interiorly are filled with the doctrines of the World.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home