The Problem With Jesus

The Problem With Jesus

"And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples,

"Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

Matt.9:11

The Pharisees had a problem with Jesus. He didn't act like the other teachers and was often seen in the company of people that were of an unpleasant crowd (in their estimation). Sinners were not here for compassion, sinners were here to be rebuked, disciplined, scolded for their abhorrent behaviors! They often would be found "sitting by (Lk.5:17)" watching him as he would be found eating and drinking with "sinners."

The author of the book of Hebrews explains that high priests were chosen to represent men before God and God before men. The high priest, although he was able to enter into the presence of God as no one else could, was still human. His humanity meant that the high priest, understanding human weaknesses himself, could deal “gently” with the “ignorant and wayward.” This unique word in Heb. 5:2, which the ESV translates “gently,” could also be translated “holding his emotions in restraint.” When confronted with ignorance or even error, the faithful high priest kept control of his passions and held his anger in check. Many Christians could do with a lot more of this quality! Yes, sometimes people’s sins may call for anger! Jesus was angry at the “hardness of heart” of some of the Jews, yet, He was also grieved by it. The Gospels spend much more time expressing Jesus' compassion, being moved in his heart, "because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. (Mk.6:34)."

There’s ignorance (being unlearned, untaught) and then there’s ignorance (suppressing the truth, refusing to learn or listen). Of those who aren't walking the narrow path, there are those who are misled and deceived, confused spiritual strays – and there are those who stubbornly insist on their own way. We use compassion – listening, seeing the other’s perspective, trying to identify our shared feelings in someone else – to know the difference.

The Pharisees were not wrong to confront error. In the context of what Jesus considered the second greatest commandment, the Jews were told not to hate a brother. They were to rebuke a neighbor in the wrong, either so as not to share in his sin or else to rescue him from it. All was to be done neither in vengeance nor with a grudge, “but you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev.19:17,18).” Paul told Timothy to rebuke those who persisted in sin ; he told the Ephesian Christians to “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them (Eph.5:11).” James writes that bringing someone who has wandered from the truth saves the sinner’s soul from death and “covers a multitude of sins (Jas.5:19,20).”

If the Pharisees had a problem with the sinners Jesus ate with, or with Jesus for eating with them, how should they have handled it? Certainly not by ignoring or downplaying sin, and not by gossiping as they did. Did you notice how the Pharisees attacked Jesus’ disciples for Jesus’ behavior? They got an answer only because Jesus overheard the criticism. We ought to have a zeal for God’s Word that mimics Jesus’ own. But the Son of God was never wrong! When He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees it was because without a doubt they had misinterpreted or misapplied the Scriptures. He knew when and how to be gentle, or tough. We, on the other hand, must always approach reproving others (or even approving them) infused with humility. We are not infallible; our arguments on others’ wrongs could be wrong themselves. Unlike the Lord, even when we’re right we may not always choose the best approach to a situation.

How could the Pharisees have reconciled Scriptural teaching on keeping separate from sinners, rebuking sinners, and at the same time being merciful to them? Perhaps they could have approached the situation with humility, considering their own weaknesses (Gal.6:1-3). Perhaps they could have done a “heart check” for uncontrolled anger or grudges. The Pharisees might have had compassion for the sinners (and Jesus), trying to understand why they were what they were. Would they have laid down their lives for the ones they were criticizing and arguing with? “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends,” said Jesus (Jn.15:13). One of the Lord’s criticisms of the religious lawyers of His day was that they loaded people “with burdens hard to bear,” and they were totally unwilling to help people with those burdens. Were the Jewish religious teachers willing to live under the same obligations they placed on others? Could they? Did the scribes and Pharisees love the people they were correcting enough to climb down out of the judgment seat and give them a hand?

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

2 Tim.2:24-26

This Article Adapted from a book manuscript

"Arguing Like Jesus

by Kerry Gately, pgs.98-104