Did Jesus debate; were he and Paul ever harsh?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Luke2427, Dec 8, 2010.

  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Let me begin by saying what I am NOT arguing and would not argue.

    1. I would never argue that Jesus was ever anything less than gracious and perfect in character and behavior. I believe that Jesus loved everyone. (BTW, I believe that he loves everyone today) This thread does not at all contend that Jesus would EVER be a jerk or a bully.

    2. I am not arguing that Jesus was harsh as a general rule. It was his nature to love and be merciful and kind and compassionate. That was the way he treated MOST people- and he always treated ALL people better than they deserve. We are to follow this example he set for us.

    3. I am not arguing that Jesus and Paul ever debated to win. That was not their goal. Their goal was to persuade and instruct and reveal error and impart truth. They did not set out to have their hands raised in victory over the ones with whom they exchanged.

    I am arguing:

    1. That Jesus was at times, when necessary, when being so would make a needful point- rough and harsh. These times when Jesus would be rough and harsh usually had to do with his dealings with self righteous people or people with no regard for God and his will. Jesus was jealous for his Father's glory and would at times be rough with those who undermined it.

    There are many examples of this that I will present as, and if, the discussion goes forward, but for now I cite this one:

    Here the Son who loved his Father and thus his Father's House was harsh with them who so trivialized the worship of God.

    The Greek word here for "cast out" is ekballo. It is a compound word "ek" meaning "out"(1537) and "ballo" meaning "to throw (in various applications more or less violent and intense)".

    So here we see the sinless Son of God, jealous for his Father's glory, throwing people out of the temple violently with intensity.

    It is worth noting that this word "ballo" is the word for when the angels "cast" the wicked into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:15.

    John 2 informs us:
    This previous instance paints an even harsher picture of his handling of wicked people who undermine the honor of God's house so. He did this twice. And he did it with great zeal- he fulfilled the prophecy- the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. This first recorded instance he made a scourge to drive them out.

    Once again, was this Christ's general demeanor? No. Of course not. But was he at times harsh and rough with those whose actions demanded it? Clearly.

    I am out of time for now.
     
    #1 Luke2427, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2010
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    I'm disappointed, Luke. First of all, I was hoping for the debate on whether or not Christ debated. Secondly, this opening argument that Christ was harsh in this case is a non-starter. I'll give it one answer, but beyond that it is no challenge.

    And I'll not even make a point of the fact that your original premise was that Christ was abrasive. You are wishy washy on that and I'm tired of it. First you embrace it, then you try to back off. Then you say abrasive is good in my poll thread. Then you start another thread complaining that you have been called abrasive. Make up your mind.

    Apparently you just went to Strong's for this definition (you gave a Strong's number), and that's a very weak argument in modern Greek semantics. Don't you have a real Greek lexicon? The word ekballo is extremely common in the NT (76 times), and simply giving a Strong's definition does absolutely nothing to prove that this is a harsh action by Christ. For example, it is used to pull out something from another's eye in Matt. 7:4. Not harsh, but gentle there!
    There are two reasons this action by Christ is not harsh at all, and you came close to both reasons with this statement, but missed them entirely.

    (1) Christ was the King of the Jews. It is not harsh at all for a king to enforce the law. These money-changers were breaking the Jewish law by their actions, and for King Jesus to stop them was a just action, not harsh. They actually got off easy! They weren't imprisoned, whipped with a cat of nine tails, or injured in any way.

    (2) Christ called it "my Father's house." This means that to drive thieves out was not harsh at all, but justifiable self-defense. I mean come on, if a thief was in your house and you drove him out, would you really call it harsh? Really?

    Christian self defense experts all over the world refer to this passage as a wonderful example of why self-defense is just and right. See my pamphlet, A Christian Philosophy of Self Defense (published by the Gospel Martial Arts Union) for just one example.
    Nope. Absolutely a "fail" in semantics. You can't try to define ekballo with a different word, ballo and expect to be taken seriously.
    As a martial arts weapons expert I have to say, "You're kidding, right?" You really think a first century belt (with no belt buckle) makes a harsh weapon? All Christ's belt would have done is sting a little, doing no permanent damage, cutting not at all, leaving no welts. Calling Christ's belt "harsh" is about like saying I was harsh when I was a kid to flick my sister with a wet towel. Now a quarterstaff, that would have been harsh. A sword? Harsh. Christ's belt? They really got off easy.

    I'm out of here. Time for evangelism.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Paul v Peter. I would have paid money to see that (sadly, I was out of town)

    Gal 2:11 Paul wrote "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

    Mano el mano, nose to nose, last one standing . . .
     
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Now that must have been a great debate! But how soon did Peter realize he was wrong, I wonder?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    This happened earlier in Paul's ministry. By the end (AD 65) Peter was kissing up to Paul big time. Look what he wrote about this nose-to-nose confrontation.

    "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. Paul writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
    II Pet 3
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Peter obviously knew he'd met his match.
     
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    I researched this "scourge" (an unfortunate rendering). As is often the case, Strong's gets it wrong. The word "lash" is probably a better rendering. The Greek is fraggelion, a hapax legomenon (occurring only here in the NT), and never occurs in the LXX. In fact, my search of the Perseus database of Greek documents only has John 2:15. So we are left to the context to find out the meaning.

    The context gives us a clue. The "scourge" was made of small cords, Greek scoinion, occurring only here and in Acts 27:32. All modern lexicons agree that this was a rope made of rushes. Now Jesus took these small ropes, quickly wound them together, and then what did He do? He drove out the animals! Didn't even hit the thieves with it. Where's the harshness? Not there!
     
  8. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
     
    #8 Luke2427, Dec 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2010
  9. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think you missed Dr. Bob's point. A confrontation of this sort, nose to nose, last man standing- that is the language there as Dr. Bob points out- that is rough and harsh.

    Young people today looking at Paul lambasting Peter for this deed might have said as soon as it was over- "HARSH!"

    And they would have been right.

    The definition that you presented for abrasive is "rough and harsh"- as Dr. Bob has pointed out in this confrontation- this was rough and harsh.

    You have lost this leg of the argument. Do you concede?
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Nope. I don't use Strong's in my Greek teaching and NT translation, and I refuse to use it here or respect your definitions from it. Strong's is very often flat out wrong. It was originally published in 1890, 120 years ago, and there has been is so much lexical data uncovered since then.
    Pay attention. I just gave a usage of ekballo that described a gentle action. Now, prove to me that it means something harsh in the case of Christ and the temple cleansing.

    Note also: in Matt. 9:25 people were simply put out of a house (nothing harsh); in Matt. 9:38 we are to pray that laborers are sent out (ekballo) into the harvest (nothing harsh there); in Matt. 12:35 a good man brings out (ekballo) treasure from his heart, and a similar quote in v. 52. And that's just in Matt. (Please, by all means show your Greek doctor friend this post. Maybe he'll catch my meaning now.)
    Um, that's the definition for ballo, not ekballo. And you missed my entire point. My point is a semantic one, that ekballo can refer to a gentle action, not that the action in the temple was, ergo, gentle.
    And again, you miss my entire point. I did not say that the temple events were gentle, I said the word ekballo can be used to describe a gentle event. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove it to be a harsh event based on ekballo.
    Tell you what. Find me a commentary--one single commentary--that defines the event as harsh. I dare you!!
    1) I see. You can't handle this discussion by yourself. Still an undergraduate, am I right? Probably haven't even taken beginning Greek yet, right?
    2) Apparently your Greek expert missed my point also, though I'm sure he's good at what he does. My argument is not that the events in the temple were gentle, but that the word ekballo can be used to describe a gentle event. Therefore, the burden of proof that here ekballo means th event was a "harsh" event is on you. Oh and by the way, ask your Greek friend if Strong's is an authority in his world. :tongue3:
    I assume at that time you'll admit your argument is weak, then we can all move along to your next event where Christ, the just God, is supposedly harsh.
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Oh, please. So now you (an undergraduate still, perhaps?) are explaining to me what Dr. Bob meant, a man with an earned doctorate and many, many years of experience? I think he's extremely capable enough to explain things himself. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    Shall we talk some more about educational arrogance? Be careful least you have a peasant revolt.
     
  13. BobinKy

    BobinKy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Message deleted by BobinKy]

    Luke...

    Please check your personal messages.

    ...Bob
     
    #13 BobinKy, Dec 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2010
  14. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Luke? Let me give you a hint here:

    When Dr. Bob and John of Japan get together in agreement, or even if they are on opposite sides of issue, you better pay attention to what they are saying. Not only do both have the educational background to speak with confidence, but they have the experience to back up their educations! They've been and are still on the frontlines for Christ and they have the fruit to prove it.

    You are arguing a lost cause here.
     
  15. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Luke, if you think by starting a thread attempting to show that Christ, or even Paul was harsh is thereby justification for your abrasiveness, you need to reconsider.

    Just apologize and move on.
     
  16. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
     
  17. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I do pay attention to whatever Dr. Bob, and several others on here like Archangel, speaks.

    :thumbs:
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Folks, I'm bowing out of this thread. Here are the reasons.

    (1) The original deal that Luke agreed to (in addition to that Jesus debated) was that he would prove Jesus was "abrasive." ("Harsh" was part of the definition of "abrasive" that we agreed upon.) Luke reneged, and changed from "abrasive" to "harsh."

    (2) The original deal was that Luke would find a judge for this debate, someone who was qualified in Greek. Luke asked just one person, who declined, even though there are others qualified in Greek on the BB.

    (3) The person who declined the "judgeship" suggested Luke go ahead and start the thread anyway. When I heard that, I said I'd take a look at the thread when Luke started it and then decide if it was worth my while to participate. I've done that, participated a little, and decided it's not worth my while. The main reason is that Luke apparently has no training in Greek, semantics (the branch of linguistics that deals with the meaning of words), or any other language. (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong here. If he doesn't correct what I've just said, you'll know I'm right.) Luke not only wants to use the 120-year-old Strong's, he is not getting what I am saying about the Greek semantics of ekballo, and I really don't have the time to become his teacher in semantics.

    (4) Luke was originally going to start the thread on Monday. He didn't, and now it's Friday in Japan and I have a full day of NT translating to do. Then of course tomorrow I prepare for Sunday, and so on.

    Sorry Luke. Find someone else. I'm out of here. :flower:
     
    #18 John of Japan, Dec 9, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2010
  19. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although Luke has probably gone a bit overboard, there is no denying that not only Jesus, Paul and Peter, pulled no punches, but that it was a general attitude of the early church. They did not intentionally provoke people, but again and again we see their plain spoken and direct confrontational methods getting them scourged, beaten, and killed. The friendship evangelism, and effeminate methodology espoused by so many in today's church, would never have resulted in the harsh treatment that we see poured out on Jesus and the disciples.

    The fact is, the soft-spoken, effeminate Jesus portrayed in most movies about His life, are a thing of myth. Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter, yelled at people on the streets, calling them things like "vipers" and "enemies of all righteousness," not to mention sons of murderers and disciples of hell.

    There is no question from scripture that Jesus spoke the truth, and openly rebuked those who denied it. And He was not always gentle, as we see with the money changers. I believe the general thing we see in scripture, is that He was gentle with the humble, broken and repentant, and that He was harsh with those opposed Him and the gospel; the proud and arrogant.
     
  20. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Jesus was terribly blunt at times. I never noticed it's severity in reading. I think at times I was looking at the whole passage and not the individual phrases, but when I was teaching the life of Christ and listened to the words too, some passages did specifically catch my ear as so direct that it was hard to hear. I would have hated to have been on the receiving in of a den of vipers speech. We are talking about God addressing sinful man though, and Jesus was/is Holy with perfectly pure intent and we are not. I think we have to take care in how we address others. There is certainly a place for directness, but directness does not have to be harsh and abrasive. JMHO.
     

Share This Page

Loading...