Was Jesus just? [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Mithrandir

January 30th 2007, 11:29 PM

[QUOTE=Tuk;129588] Is Jesus just?[?QUOTE]

It is some time since this was posted, but I think it is an important question.
I don't claim any special wisdom, but here's how I approach the problem.

First, for those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, such questions are strange. Was Jesus good? Was Jesus just? Did Jesus sin? Against what standard are we to judge?
If Jesus is the Word, through whom the world was made, and I would include here the world of ethics, of spirituality, of - well everything as well as the physical world, then he decided what was good and what was evil, what was just and what was unjust. Maybe he put these ideas into the very structure of our lives, and maybe we have twisted them a little, or maybe not, anyway, when we disagree on matters of justice and goodness maybe we are following the sin of Adam and wanting to decide for ourselves the knowledge of good and evil.

So I think on the ontological level (although I don't like using those sorts of words as I'm never absolutely sure I'm using them in the correct manner) the questions cannot be asked. They are meaningless. 'Good' is what the Word decided was good. Of course it is hypothetically possible that God would decide to do something of which he did not approve, but I really think that is a nonsense idea. So what God does is good and just and true, by definition.

However, on our ordinary everyday level, we think of actions or events and we judge them on our understanding of justice and fairness. And it is irresponsible not to do so. And we find there are numerous places where we would say even God was unjust.

Think of the Exodus. Was it fair that countless Egyptians should be drowned just because their Pharaoh was pig headed? (I often wonder how the Coptic Christians of Egypt feel when they read Exodus!) Was it fair when God allowed Satan to mess around with Job's family just to prove a point? Were those innocents just pawns in the game played by God and Satan? Although I believe Job is only a story and not historical, the question is still valid - is the action just?

I'm trying to think of occasions when we might consider something Jesus did was unjust. Unkind, yes, like his apparent treatment of the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7: 27, or his diatribe against the Pharisees as in Matthew 23 - maybe that was unjust criticism for we understand that all Pharisees were not hypocrites. That only alters slightly the question: Was Jesus ever unkind?

How can we deal with such accusations?

Non-Christians will just have to deal with them as best they can, and although they may prove their point in some situations, generally I think Jesus will come out fairly well. For Christians, it becomes a question of faith. The question really becomes, not was Jesus unkind, but are we missing something? Did the disciples not fully understand when they recorded Jesus' action or attitude? That is difficult for conservatives for whom the Bible is pretty much inerrant, but for many others, it is just an attitude of humility. Do we really know all the facts?

To illustrate what I mean, in the matter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, was Jesus putting out a challenge to the woman rather than being derogative? One commentator remarks that there are two Greek words for dog. One, that used of the street curs, and that was the derogative meaning given by Jews (who used it) in referring to Gentiles. The other is what is described as a 'lap-dog' a much loved house pet. The commentator asked, which word did Jesus use? The difficulty is that Jesus was probably using Aramaic - although being in Gentile territory, he could have been using Greek - and in Aramaic, there is no such difference, there being only the one word for dog - or so I understand. However, the writer of the gospel may well have used the softer word to bring out what may have been in the intonation of Jesus as he spoke the words. Some will claim that this is only explaining a way out of the dilemma and maybe they are right, but it just could be the explanation. The Christian I believe, takes it on faith, the Jesus consistently showed compassion, even when compassion was not warranted. I wish to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt in all matters of justice and kindness and goodness. And I blame Matthew pretty much for his 23rd chapter.

[QUOTE=Tuk;129588] What I mean by this is when Jesus made His claim, I am, His justification to warrant our acknowledgement of His divinity (in which Christians do imply is also for our salvation) was?

His resurrection?
His miracles?

Granted, if we saw these events with our eyes we would be easily swayed. The problem as I see it is Jesus resurrection only establishes the fact that He can resurrect Himself. His miracles only establishes the fact that He can do miracles.

Prophecy?

No. As intriguing as biblical prophecy is, all we have is one extraordinary individual. One who can see the future.

Is it His claim?[QUOTE/]

I believe the biblical assertion is not that Jesus resurrected himself but that God raised him from the dead. There is an important difference. The assertion is that God reversed the 'No' of the world to Jesus, with an emphatic 'Yes'.

The suggestion that his miracles only establish the fact that he can do miracles doesn't worry me a bit, although I think it is not true to the biblical witness. Many times, after some extraordinary event, or after authoritative teaching, the people wonder how this man could have such learning or could do such marvellous things. Maybe, to many, they were evidences of his oneness with God. But Jesus himself warned against seeking signs a number of times, and he even indicated the futility of signs in his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16. I believe his healings were more an illustration of his compassion that evidence of his divinity.

My understanding of Jesus is that he was a man of extraordinary perception, but that he had no supernatural knowledge of the future. Had he this, we would have to question the reality of his humanity. He stated clearly that he did not know the time of his return - known only to God. And I am sure the modern biblical scholars are right who claim the eschatological discourses - Mark 13 and parallels - were really predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, using the exaggerated language common among apocalyptical writers. It is not hard to imagine that any person of perception would have been able to predict the reaction of the Romans to even the suggestion of an insurrection.

I believe the prophetic mission of Jesus was not in any way to predict the future, except as a warning, but to announce the will and purposes of God.

Perhaps the justification Jesus had for making the claim "I AM" was just his belief that what he was doing was what God wanted to be done, and perhaps in particular, completing in his own person what God had wanted Israel to be and do - to be a blessing to the whole world and a light to the nations.

This comes out most clearly in John 4: 17 - 18 - Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

There are two ways by which a son can make himself equal with his father. One is to oppose his father's will claiming equal authority to make his own decisions, and two so to empty himself of personal ambition leaving only the desire to do exactly what his father wishes. The Jews thought Jesus was following the first path, but Jesus was following the second. So what Jesus did was so exactly what the Father wanted that it could reasonably be said to be the Father acting. In this way only was Jesus making himself equal with God.

That is my answer to the question posed in this thread.