jesus was more concerned with structural and institutional misdeeds than individual flaws

[sophiaserpentia]

While Jesus had many words of condemnation for different types of people, it occurred to me today that Jesus is rarely critical or harsh to anyone who is actually in his presence. For example, he is critical of "scribes and Pharisees," the rich, the Sadducees, and so on, when speaking of them abstractly. But it is truly unusual for him to be shown having a harsh word for someone in his presence. Often the people in his presence include those who would have been shunned by most.

Even when he addresses aloud the sins of people around him, his tone is matter-of-fact, as if he is not very concerned with their imperfections or transgressions. The only people who see his wrath directly are the moneychangers in the temple. Next to that, the sharpest rebuke was directed at "the Jews" in John 8, accusing them of being the children of the Devil (a passage which some scholars believe was added later). (Edit. But even then, it was not a criticism leveled at specific people for doing a specific thing.) To the adulteress he says merely, "Now go, and don't do it anymore." A Pharisee who asks him about paying taxes to Caesar is asked, "Why do you test me?"

Many people who grew up as Christians can tell you about fear and guilt which was instilled in them regarding their least transgressions. But it seems to me that Jesus was far less concerned with the transgressions of ordinary people than he was with oppression and exploitation. By far his strongest criticisms were saved for people who were rich, or those who were espousing certain religious codes which contributed to social stratification.

For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan was meant as a dig at the priests and Levites, who would walk past a man left for dead by robbers in a ditch in order to preserve their precious ritual cleanliness.

If we read the words of Jesus as if he were focused primarily on social or cultural evils, and less on individual transgressions, the meaning of his ministry looks very different. If he truly meant for people to walk around in a cloud of fear about their transgressions, he would have spoken directly to people in a much more critical way. Instead, he 'suffered' the presence of people who would have been shunned by most (tax collectors and prostitutes and so on), and was not shown being critical of them. It is sometimes implied that these people were accepted by Jesus because they had "reformed" and changed their sinful ways, but this is nowhere stated, and if it were important to the Christian message, I think it would have been.

Comments

[ubiquity.livejournal.com]

Perhaps this is Jesus' equivalent of the monkeysphere?

[wildgarden.livejournal.com]

this makes sense.

beautiful icon, too.

[aerope.livejournal.com]

Or maybe he's the one example of hating sins and loving sinners. (I find this concept kind of a cop-out, or oxymoronic, or something, but I wonder if it can be done thoroughly.)

[alobar.livejournal.com]

> Jesus is rarely critical or harsh
> to anyone who is actually in his presence.

You ever wonder if he just wasn't a wimp who could talk about people behind their backs, but not to their faces?

> people who see his wrath directly are the moneychangers in the temple.

And possibly a bit bi-polar?

[brontosproximo.livejournal.com]

This is the first time this topic has been presented to me.

I thank you for giving me something to meditate on.

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

Thank you for articulating so well something I have always felt and understood on a level so deep that I couldn't really see it well enough to articualte it myself.