The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Jesus was mean and harsh

But what does that have to do with me today? Why is that even included in the Bible?

Further, if it was the destruction of Jerusalem that was the issue, then how is that worse than what happened to Sodom (as Jesus warned)?

I’m really trying to get this. All my life I’ve had a love/hate thing with God. From childhood Jesus was a frightening figure to me. On the other hand I have always had a strong attraction to, we’ll call it, “God”. Especially when I encountered beauty in nature and art. Its still that way now.

But with Christianity I find such contradictions. Its supposed to be about love and grace, but I only get that when I read people like Paul, or mystics like Isaac of Syria. Not Jesus.

Jesus was born at a time and in a place of great unrest both politically and religiously, and those things could not be ignored. He could not sit under the Banyan tree like Gautama :smiley: . However it is good to realize that those close to him loved him very much, adored and indeed worshipped him. A mean and harsh person would not get that type of devotion.
As well, if we look closely at the letters written by the pastors and missionaries closest to His time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there is a sweetness and love, along with a ‘good’ sternness and challenge to be our best, that is heartening and imo shows what Jesus is able to do now that his earthly mission is over. After all, He was limited to one body, and basically to one mission, that is, to seek and save the lost of the house of Israel in a very precarious time. Now, we understand that his resurrection was of universal importance and significance, and that all things are subject to his sovereign love. Which is the way he has always been, and the way his Father has always been. Sin and our rebellion caused his love to take the form of correction, prodding, urging, threatening, judging, waking up, shattering the foundations, SHOUTING what needed to be heard.
Who could deny that we still need that? Really, looking at the world now, would we not wish things to be set right?

I’m rambling now. :blush: What you and I need is to ask for the love of God (for God, from God) to be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. That’s the ground we need to put our roots in - love.

Hi Andrei… it was included in the bible because it was pertinent to the generation in view and consequently prophetically relevant. Jesus was using Sodom as a comparison of an in-kind fiery judgment to come. The “more tolerable” statement was with regards to Israel and its knowledge of God, as opposed to Sodom’s basic ignorance; Israel thus being more culpable etc.

So what this has to do with you today… well in terms of future judgment, “nothing” as that has been dealt with – that is the benefit afforded to all humanity since, i.e., the reconciliation.

I could be wrong but I suspect your “love/hate thing with God” like many has been the result of religianity having sold you down the river. Just because churchianity has misrepresented the gospel doesn’t mean God is a rogue… the message has been botched. Fortunately however God’s grace reaches beyond human foolishness.

Hi Andre
I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying. I may be looking through rose-tinted spectacles but I generally think that Jesus spoke very harshly to those who were oppressing the poor and needy (and spiritually needy). Those harsh words were said in front of the ‘oppressed’ and would be an encouragement (IMO).
However, you quote a good scripture to support your feelings and this was NOT to the oppressors:

I don’t see any direct threats in this text. No-one was told to speak harshly to those who weren’t receptive - just to leave and don’t bother going back (ie dust off feet). BUT I agree that the ‘testimony against them’ and ‘more tolerable for SandG’ seems to portray a bitter and harsh spirit. I honestly think that those who deny it must be pretty desperate not to see it (perhaps through fear or a weak faith? Who knows?’ The way its written, it seems that Jesus wanted the disciples to understand that 'these nasty people are gonna get their comeuppance, so you mustn’t feel bad about the way you were treated. That, to me, clearly smells of ‘revenge is sweet and its coming’.
So, to me, you raise an excellent point. I also have noticed similarly confusing sentiments elsewhere in the NT.
Gabe says:

That may be true, but I don’t see it is relevant in this case because Jesus instruction was towards ALL who were not receptive and ALL doesn’t take into account any individuals circumstances or possibly excusable reasons.

Andre and I (or anybody) would have to be MAD not to WANT to see it. My question is why so many of our regulars DONT see the elephant in the room pointed out by Andre.

Again, I have sympathy with this statement because I see quite a few apparent contradictions in the NT (e.g. ‘Judge not’, then later … ‘Judge’).
However, when you say that

I can imagine that your mind could well be prioritising those harsh passages and dwelling on those selectively to the exclusion of the comforting and explicitly loving passages of Jesus.
Let me offer some possibilities:

  1. The NT is just a COMPLETE load of Bull - if so, no more need be said.

  2. We are mis-reading or misunderstanding those passages - this is the approach some of my friends here are suggesting, and I will add yet another speculative attempt at the ‘dust off your feet’ passage:
    I wonder if, having commissioned those disciples, they were endued with an authority and a power with which we are unfamiliar today [Mar 6:7 And He called the Twelve near and began to send them out two by two. And He gave them authority over the unclean spirits,] In which case, it is possible that we should view the proclamations very differently to those anyone might give nowadays. Perhaps, when the disciples spoke on THIS SPECIFIC mission, the Spirit of God spoke directly to the hearts of those hearing the message and the hearers (in their spirits) actually had an encounter with our God of Love? If this was the case, then most would embrace such a God and be overjoyed to receive this message. But some who had let evil dominate their spirits and were imprisoned by their own sinful nature, would need a future purging in order to be reconciled to this God of Love. The reference to Sand G is interesting because we are told in scripture that S and G WILL be restored and so we can be confident that the awful consequence is actually a painful purification process. Just speculation but I become more and more aware how difficult it is for us 21st Century Westerners to have any idea what the scriptures are actually trying to say.

  3. We shouldn’t ‘idolise’ the Bible so much as if it were the Word of God. Perhaps it is full of errors, prejudices, etc and it was never meant to be anything else. I say this because I see no indication (from scripture) that it should be treated as ‘the Word of God’ nor that it should be given as much authority as that Spirit which is within you and I Andre. Doesn’t one text even say it is the Spirit who will lead us into truth (not the texts). Why didn’t Jesus give copious dictations to be left as perfect written documents for us? I’m sure he would have if he’d wanted us to treat the Bible in the way most western churches DO! Surely He wants us to rely on that inner voice of the Spirit.

Sorry but I’ve got to go. I’ve probably said too much anyway. xxx

I think you have said much sense Pilgrim. I am glad this topic has come up. My contribution would be this. In the time line there is a real difference between before and after the cross. Jesus ministry was mostly carried out targeted towards the Jews and in the light of the Old Testament law. It is very noticeable that thoughout his teaching that Jesus added weight to the law rather than soften it. He did also correct some very obvious misrepresentations along they way as well. To give an example from the sermon on mount in respect of the sin of adultery he says that merely to look on a woman in lust is to have committed adultery with her I the heart. I guess this can occur in the opposite direction but being a mere man how would I know :wink:. I mean that’s a bit stiff Jesus surly you devised sex drive so we could be fruitful and multiply - get real! Be all that as it may and attribute seriousness to the judgment of sins mild or heinous, Jesus died to save sinners. I think Jesus wanted to make it plain that we were and are stuffed and helpless without him. The Jews relied on there law. Jesus queried them saying you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life yet these are they which speak of me. The whole point is that they were barking up the wrong tree. If you have a dog which does this then you can get a spray that renders the tree obnoxious or horrible to the dog. You may recall Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees you will not even see the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s us done for said his disciples.! Jesus reply was that with man it’s impossible but with God al l things are possible. I love the books of Adrian Plass. He refers to the event I’ve just described where one of the ordinary men was standing close to Jesus as he spoke these words and he pulled on his sleeve and said Master is that true? Yes it is replied Jesus. So the guy was crestfallen and said well I’ve had it then. Jesus whispered in his ear. That was for them - you just stick with me and it will all be fine! So the long and short of it is that sticking with Jesus is the best game in town.

Thank you all for your replies. I have much to think about now.

Interestingly, my husband was expressing this same sentiment to me recently – that Jesus was not someone he could love, that when he read the gospels all he heard was judgment and condemnation. That seems so foreign to me. Recently he’s begun to see Jesus differently. Maybe if I tag him he’ll come talk about it with you. [tag]Dave Johnson[/tag]

Sonia

Andre,

My impression is that if we’ve been told that Jesus is a loving soul who is sweetly gracious, and who thus just passively absorbs those who bring evil, we will find him (though short of doing physical harm to them) to actually seem quite harshly aggressive. Phillip Yancey had this reaction when he compared the text to what he’d heard in Sunday School and thus wrote “The Jesus I Never Knew,” which has a chapter on Jesus’ offensive, abrasive side. Still, one of the fascinating things to me is how various factors lead each of us to add it up differently. My own impression is that Jesus could be grossly confrontational with those he saw as oppressing the little people, and my sense is that religion can indeed promote a lot of pain for struggling people. Thus, since I seem to root for the little guy, (even if it seems his rhetoric gets overboard at times) I especially love many of the very scenes where Jesus (as he hero for me) confronts leaders that he perceives hypocritically laying great burdens on others, while boosting their own arrogance. Each of your many good observations deserves reflection, but I do find that some seem to go beyond balanced reason. For example, you seemed to criticize him for warning about the consequences of destruction that would come from the course they were on, on the grounds that his warnings of severe outcomes did not avert those disasters anyway. But must we only urge constructive choices upon those we somehow know will heed the message and change direction? I’d like to think that even Jesus’ nastiest remarks were motivated by a genuine caring that hoped to wake the hardest hearts out of shooting themselves and others in the foot (though I’ll admit that if I said some of those things, you’d be right to wonder about my real motives). Blessing on you in your honest desire to sort out these tough questions.

All the best to you,
Bob

Andre,

While I agree there are things Jesus is portrayed as saying that I have a problem with (the thing you mentioned concerning ‘whoever loves father or mother, etc. more than Me is not worthy of Me’ is one of them – I honestly just assume that I don’t understand it yet.), the other saying you quoted:

doesn’t actually seem like a problem to me. It used to, but since I’ve gone UR, it’s taken on a whole different light. Sodom and Gomorrah will be restored according to scripture – and perhaps they’ve already had their judgment and on the Day, will repent easily. Regardless of whether this speculation is so, as someone else said, they received NO testimony, let alone one in which signs and wonders were done and the true good news was preached to them. The cities to whom Jesus sent His followers WERE being given these signs, and if they refused to respond to them, then OF COURSE their judgment would have to be harsher than that of S & G. It’s only right that the one with fewer opportunities to repent and believe will be given some leeway over the one with many opportunities.

Because of that, I really DON’T see this as a problem scripture. I’m not stretching at all when I tell you that I think this saying was a mere statement of fact. It will be worse for them because they knew better and because they saw things that S & G did not get the chance to see. Not that it will be impossible or that they will not be saved in the DAY, but that they rejected a clear witness and so have hardened their hearts against the truth. It will be hard for them to reverse this unfortunate decision. It will be easier for S & G, who have NOT hardened their hearts against a clearly presented display of the love and saving power of God.

Blessings, Cindy

Pilgrim, Andre,

I’m NOT convinced there is an “elephant in the room” nor am I convinced it’s “Orwellian … to speak of Jesus as being loving and kind” just because the gospels also give a glance of Jesus’ more ornery side… don’t forget, he was “a prophet” Israel’s prophet, and by all accounts Israel’s prophets had a fierce reputation for calling how it was and THAT at times entailed strong words and actions.

THAT in no way negates the genuine care and concern he had for his people and consequently the grace that was to flow from the redemption he secured… he knew it would cost him everything, LITTLE WONDER then on occasion he shot from the hips.

Maybe I’m looking through a lens forged in my earlier years. Where and when I grew up Christianity was a fearful thing to me, in part I believe because I felt like an outsider (my family weren’t "church people). The whole thing was unfamiliar and threatening.

I think we all have our lens that have shaped how we view things and oft times these have been to our detriment. Fortunately God sees us clearly and has no issue with us; religianity however begs to differ.

Remember that Jesus also wept over the same people.

There is a different between being harsh for the sake of being harsh versus being hard for a purpose. Some people need the fear of God in them to change their minds. Others a gentle suggestion. Typically self-righteous people need something stronger to get them to rethink their positions. This is why the Pharisees had the most harsh rebukes and sinners, who knew they were sinners had little to no rebuke and were given grace. Yes, Jesus was harsh sometimes and I thank God that he is passionate enough to be that way to us.

I seem to remember both G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis writing the same thing. I wish I had the quotes handy.

Understanding the context of the warnings Jesus spoke is important. At first we hear those warnings in the context of the false teachings religious organizations have promoted for centuries- against a twisted backdrop of God eventually destroying or eternally tormenting almost everyone.

When heard in the context of a reproof to religious hypocrites and rulers, against a backdrop(overall perspective) of God eventually redeeming, reconciling and restoring everyone who ever lived, along with the entire creation- the harshness and fearsome aspect of Jesus begins to evolve into something else entirely.

Jesus taught, essentially, that we were to love God with all our hearts, expressed through loving our neighbor as ourselves. His warnings were for those who prey upon others, manipulate others, ignore the needs of others. Those who walk in the love of God do not need to fear those warnings, but still the warnings are necessary even for those who walk in that love, because we all need to watch out for the tendency to fall into self-centeredness.

There is a consequence for rejecting the love of God. It is a consequence sufferred in the heart, soul and mind of the violator, in various ways. Jesus is still praying tho, “Forgive them Father, they don’t know what they are doing”, and for those who experience that forgiveness, the healing has already begun. Eventually all will be healed, “For every knee shall bow, whether in heaven, or on earth or under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

A True Name

The evil reputation is heaped
on his true name
for ills done by so-called Christians
falsely in it
while the world seeks glory
in names that cannot give it
yet among them some,
unknowing,
live it
while among the so-called
are so few
who know the name
and live it too.
the One in whom
all of them
exist
and have their being
knows their blindness
and their seeing
and shows them love
their souls
now freeing
by one who came,
please understand,
not just in name
but heart in hand
to die for all
and all redeem.
when time is done
the ages through
and eternity rushes in on you
in fire and light
as darkness flees
and sin forgotten
beneath the seas of love,
forgiveness through and through
History,
The whole creation singing of
An ever unfolding glory-
Behold, I am making all things new!
Rejoice!
The Lamb!
His name is true!

I’ve been reading the Book of Luke and have a few of the same questions that you brought up a few years ago. I’ve recently decided to follow Jesus, but I’m trying to understand where he is coming from in a couple of these chapters.

What did you end up deciding? I hope that you found the answers you were looking for.

God is trans-rational. Like humans He is filled with a clash of contradictions or paradoxes. It’s a holding together of extreme opposites. It’s a fused together beauty that holds opposites together in tension like we should do in ourselves. Christ is human and divine, God is both 3 and 1. Majestic yet meek. Masculine yet feminine. Merciful yet just. Loves good hates evil. Christ is equal to God yet submitted to God. Transcendent yet imminent. It’s a unity in diversity and this indeed reflects Reality in the universe in which we live. This should be expected for one of the signs of a true revelation from God is that it transcends the finite and selfish nature of man and His reasoning abilities. It’s a true miracle attesting to the truth of Christianity. The natural tendency of human reason is to reject Divine Revelation because of his finite and limited understanding. But once the duality of man’s thinking is broken opposites come together and he is ushered into the circle of love. The understanding and the paradoxes come together in a happy relationship called faith. In a happy love affair self-love transcends itself. A person who has this passionate desire of faith finds his reason fulfilled as he believes that which surpasses human understanding. Far from disproving Christianity, the paradoxes of the God confirm His supernatural accuracy. As Thomas Aquinas says, the fact that humans can come to believe is the greatest of miracles. The natural tendency of man to disbelieve is a confirmation of the truth of the revelation. We should expect a miraculous revelation of God to be impossible to understand, and difficult to believe.

As G.K. Chesterton states:

The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say “if you please” to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.