Replies

I wrote not that the questions were useless, rather that I do not recall them profiting the lawyers who asked them.

Useless and unprofitable are basically the same thing as far as I can tell. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Jesus answered the questions, even the supposedly tricky ones, and He never said, as far as I know, "That question is useless, or unprofitable, to you, but here's my answer." That's not His MO. I think He is worthy of imitation in this matter.

As for the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer, I do not view it thusly; just consider all the challengers and pretenders in any venue, this forum for example. Those who were named were another matter entirely, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

Well, I have no idea what any of that means. Perhaps you take me too rigidly. I only meant that they sent what they regarded as their best minds to try and confound Jesus, and Jesus out-lawyered them. But he wasn't dismissive of their questions. He just asked better questions back at them. Classic example, render unto Caesar. They never saw that coming, and here they were the royal magisterium.

But in all this you seem to be overlooking my bigger point, that while these lawyers asked their questions with evil intent, and with no care for their flock, the question I am asking comes out of profoundly ugly personal experiences with people abusing this passage to oppress tender-hearted believers, real people, real souls for whom Christ died. The pattern of your interpretation runs close to the pattern of these abusers, and as a matter of love for Christ and His sheep, I am asking you how you would use your interpretation in a setting of pastoral care-giving. It is a legitimate question, not in the least rhetorical, nor even really lawyerly clever, but straightforward and blunt. Someone comes to you having sinned after becoming a Christian. Does this passage apply? Yes? No? Qualified yes? Qualified no? I'm open to hearing your true thoughts on the matter. Nuance them however you like. But I think it's a fair question, and I am not sure why it is taking so much effort to get a straightforward answer.

Peace,

SR

... I am asking you how you would use your interpretation in a setting of pastoral care-giving. It is a legitimate question, not in the least rhetorical, nor even really lawyerly clever, but straightforward and blunt. Someone comes to you having sinned after becoming a Christian. Does this passage apply?

What is the exact nature of the willful sin ?

Yes? No? Qualified yes? Qualified no? I'm open to hearing your true thoughts on the matter. Nuance them however you like. But I think it's a fair question, and I am not sure why it is taking so much effort to get a straightforward answer.

The scripture always applies. How it applies depends on the nature of the sin. One seeking to confess one's sins is on the right path and should bring forth fruits meet for repentance. One seeking to justify oneself and remaining an adversary to the Messiah and his one holy catholic and apostolic church is surely at risk of judgment, fiery indignation, and destruction.