Hello, a couple comments if I may.

You wrote, He divorces Matthew 23:33 completely from its context.

Well, what is the proper context? You don't say. If you're going to make the accusation, at least try to support it.

You wrote, He hasn't shown that this is actually a curse. Why couldn't Jesus have been openly telling the truth about the character of his adversaries?

I had a good chuckle at this one. What if I said to you, "You're going to Hell, you *$()#@ idiot, for not believing in Allah." Would you take that as an act of love? Or would you, perhaps, take it as a curse?

APAB doesn't assume anything. Jesus is cursing his enemies. Pure and simple.

You wrote, Why couldn't Jesus' response in Matthew 23:33 be a non-contradictory complement to the prescriptions of Luke 6:27-28?

Because that would go against a plain reading of those scriptures.

You wrote, Just because Jesus was angry with his enemies, does it necessarily follow that he ceased to love them?

Maybe, maybe not. He certainly felt free to curse and threaten them, which is rather odd in light of the commands in Luke 6:27-28.
 

Hi, Robert. Thanks for visiting my blog!

I wanted to take a moment to respond to your comments, which I found challenging. I've rendered your comments in italics.

You wrote, He divorces Matthew 23:33 completely from its context.

Well, what is the proper context? You don't say. If you're going to make the accusation, at least try to support it.

I said at the end of my post that I am planning to write a more fulsome response that deals with the substance of Jesus' words. Perhaps I didn't state it explicitly, but that includes contextual issues.

There is a hefty amount of biblical narrative that surrounds and connects with Matthew 23:33; all that narrative should guide and inform our understanding of the intent and force of what Jesus said. APAB completely ignored that context; my point was that his use of a prooftext served his own subjective presuppositions and ideological agenda.

As a student of the Bible, my contention is that an individual verse is best known by the company it keeps. That's why I plan to do a more thorough treatment of the wider narrative. In the meantime, my point was that APAB's treatment of Matthew 23:33 was unacceptable. Your original objection only proves my point -- if you're going to grouse at me for not providing context, why in the world are you giving APAB a complete pass?

You wrote, He hasn't shown that this is actually a curse. Why couldn't Jesus have been openly telling the truth about the character of his adversaries? 

I had a good chuckle at this one. What if I said to you, "You're going to Hell, you *$()#@ idiot, for not believing in Allah." Would you take that as an act of love? Or would you, perhaps, take it as a curse?

APAB doesn't assume anything. Jesus is cursing his enemies. Pure and simple.

I'm glad to have afforded you some entertainment, but your example is qualitatively different from Jesus' words. Within a Christian framework, there's nothing necessarily inconsistent or self-contradictory about his behavior here.

In addition to the prescriptions of Luke 6:27-28, Jesus said, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3).

IF Jesus really was God in the flesh, then he had access to knowledge about people that you and I wouldn't enjoy. On that basis alone, it's perfectly reasonable to classify Matthew 23:33 as a rebuke based on divine insight into both character and eternal destiny rather than a sinful execration.

Of course, I know you won't find that answer satisfactory if you have materialist presuppositions (as I suspect you do). Nevertheless, within a Christian framework that's a perfectly coherent response.

You wrote, Why couldn't Jesus' response in Matthew 23:33 be a non-contradictory complement to the prescriptions of Luke 6:27-28?

Because that would go against a plain reading of those scriptures.

My citation of Luke 17:3 refutes this assertion.

You wrote, Just because Jesus was angry with his enemies, does it necessarily follow that he ceased to love them?

Maybe, maybe not. He certainly felt free to curse and threaten them, which is rather odd in light of the commands in Luke 6:27-28.

Again, I think the Bible itself mitigates against the notion that Jesus was cursing or "threatening" those who opposed him. I'm reminded of how Jesus commanded Peter to sheath his sword when he was being arrested in Gethsemane. He asserted that twelve legions of angels were at his disposal if he should call upon them to come to his rescue -- and yet he chose to submit to cruel treatment at the hands of those who hated and cursed him. If Jesus had been out to threaten or cow the Pharisees in Matthew 23:33, he had far more effective means available to him than a mere verbal assault.

Robert, even though I disagree with you, I'm grateful that you paid The MonT-SteR REPORT a visit. I hope you'll come back and challenge my thinking as often as you like.

Blessings (not cursings) to you! :)
 

You wrote, Hi, Robert. Thanks for visiting my blog!

My pleasure. A conversion with someone who disagrees with you is more agreeable than one alone.

You wrote, if you're going to grouse at me for not providing context, why in the world are you giving APAB a complete pass?

Because, prima facie, there's a discrepancy between Jesus's commands and his actions. Your claim is that, taken in context, there is no such discrepancy, but fail to provide a rationale for your claim. It's like you called someone a liar, but don't specify what they lied about.

You wrote, Within a Christian framework, there's nothing necessarily inconsistent or self-contradictory about his behavior here.

Is that because it's already taken as axiomatic that Jesus never could have been inconsistent or self-contradictory, sort of how the Bible is taken as inerrant among some?

You wrote, IF Jesus really was God in the flesh, then he had access to knowledge about people that you and I wouldn't enjoy.

Mark 13:32 would seem to argue against the "divine insight" view. But really, who knows? Anything is possible when we're talking about the creator of the universe. Maybe APAB is actually correct, but Jesus intended the discrepancy to test his followers' faith. Possible, right?

You wrote, My citation of Luke 17:3 refutes this assertion.

Then it would appear that Luke 17:3 has a problem with Luke 6:27:28, unless hating, cursing and mistreating are not sins.

You wrote, I hope you'll come back and challenge my thinking as often as you like.

Although this will be my last post on this topic, I look forward to your reply. :) Thank you for the exchange!
 

I'll jump in on this thread to propose that we reframe this controversy. Jesus endured "cruel and unusual punishment - which he willingly endured to demonstrate God's love for us - and provide the only way for us to escape the penalty for our moral failures.

In light of the severe beating, crucifiction, and death of Jesus, the question as to whether Jesus was guilty of maligning his fellow man is a non-issue. He died for this guy, as well as all the rest of us, even if his language in the passage in question offends us.

Our politically correct culture would certainly deem any rebuking of any other person to be unacceptable, perhaps hateful, but it measures up with principles such as "better is open rebuke than hidden love" and "faithful are the wounds of a friend" found elsewhere in the scriptures.